mcp_opendaw_rename_unit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that the tool 'sets both' label and icon, that empty name/icon values cause a skip, and that it 'Returns old and new name/icon'—revealing the mutation and feedback behavior. It doesn't discuss error handling for invalid indices or permissions, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, followed by necessary context about InstrumentBox, then a concise parameter list with constraints, and a note about return values. Every sentence earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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, the description is quite complete: it covers the operation, constraints, parameter semantics, and return values. An output schema exists, and the description also mentions the return. It doesn't specify behavior for non-existent unit indices, but the 'must be >= 1' constraint implies the expected usage. Minor gap, but overall very thorough.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for parameters, but the description fully compensates. It explains each parameter precisely: unit_index must be >= 1 and cannot be the output AU, name is a display name with empty=skip, and icon is a symbol with empty=skip and examples ('piano', 'guitar', 'drums'). This adds meaning far beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb+resource: 'Rename an audio unit's instrument and optionally set its icon.' It further clarifies the scope by explaining that Instrument AUs have a label and icon on their InstrumentBox, and that both are set. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_device_label or replace_instrument by focusing on the instrument's display name and icon.

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 for when to use the tool: renaming an instrument AU's label/icon. It explicitly states a when-not condition: 'The output AU (index 0) has no instrument and cannot be renamed,' and adds the constraint that unit_index must be >= 1. However, it does not name alternative tools for other scenarios, so it stops short of a 5.

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