mcp_opendaw_replace_instrument

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the operation deletes the old instrument and creates a new one, which is critical destructive behavior. It also states return data (old and new instrument type) and constraints, though it does not mention potential side effects or success/failure conditions.

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 with a clear opening statement, followed by implementation details, constraints, parameter explanations, and return value. Every sentence adds necessary information with no fluff or repetition, striking a good balance between completeness and conciseness.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers all key aspects: operation, scope, limitations, prerequisites, parameter semantics, and return value. With an output schema present (per context signals) and the description already stating the return type, the tool is fully specified for an agent to use correctly.

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 only provides parameter names and types with 0% coverage. The description compensates thoroughly by defining unit_index as an audio unit index with a minimum of 1, and new_instrument as a factory key with the allowed values listed explicitly ('Vaporisateur', 'Nano', 'Soundfont', 'Apparat'). This is essential information beyond the 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 specific verb and resource: 'Replace the instrument on an audio unit with a different MIDI instrument.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by specifying it operates on audio units and is limited to MIDI instruments, and even notes which instruments are excluded (Tape).

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 when-to-use guidance: works only for MIDI instruments (Nano, Vaporisateur, Soundfont, Apparat) and explicitly states when not to use it (Tape cannot be replaced this way). It also gives a prerequisite (the AU must have a CaptureMidiBox), but it does not mention alternative tools.

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