mcp_opendaw_remove_midi_effect

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 0-based indexing, but does not state whether the removed effect is permanently deleted, what happens if the index is out of range, whether the operation is reversible, or if subsequent effect indices shift. For a destructive mutation tool, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise: two sentences plus two parameter lines, all front-loaded and directly relevant. Every word adds value, with no redundant explanations or filler.

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?

For a simple tool with two integer parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core operation and parameter meanings. It omits practical context like verifying the effect exists or noting index shifting after removal, but the presence of an output schema and the tool's low complexity make this acceptable.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by defining both parameters: unit_index as 'Audio unit index' and effect_index as 'MIDI effect position to remove (0-based)'. This adds essential meaning beyond the raw schema property titles, clarifying the 0-based nature of the index.

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 'Remove a MIDI effect from an audio unit's MIDI chain' uses a specific verb (remove) and clearly identifies the target resource and container. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like remove_effect (audio effects) and add_midi_effect, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 states what the tool does but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like list_midi_effects for obtaining valid indices or remove_effect for audio effects. Usage is implied by the name and purpose but not explicitly contrasted with alternatives.

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