mcp_opendaw_change_base_signature

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that existing signature change events are recalculated to preserve approximate absolute positions, which is a critical side effect. It also discloses the default signature and return type, offering meaningful behavioral context beyond a simple mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and well-structured: a single-sentence purpose, a single-sentence side effect, two lines of parameter definitions, and a return note. Every sentence adds value without any fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simple two-parameter schema and lack of annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, side effects, parameter semantics, and return value. The output schema further reduces the need to describe return details, making this description complete for safe and effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully explains both parameters with examples and valid values (e.g., nominator 4 for 4/4, denominator 4 for quarter note). This provides the agent with all necessary information to construct correct arguments without ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Change the base time signature of the project') with a specific resource and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing the 'base' or 'initial' signature and noting that existing signature change events are recalculated, which sets it apart from tools like add_signature_change or set_time_signature.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on what the tool does and its effect on existing signature changes, implying it is for global signature changes rather than per-position edits. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.