mcp_opendaw_reset_playfield_params

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

The description adds value beyond the destructiveHint annotation by listing exactly which parameters are reset (mute, solo, exclude, polyphone, pitch, attack, release, sampleStart, sampleEnd, gate). It clearly communicates the destructive scope, though it does not mention undoability or side effects on other sample slots.

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 clear purpose line, a list of affected parameters, and parameter definitions. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 relative simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the operation, the affected parameters, the required inputs, and the return type ('Returns success or error'). No critical information is missing.

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, so the description must explain the parameters. It provides one-line definitions for both: 'unit_index: AU index containing the Playfield' and 'sample_index: Sample slot index to reset.' This adds meaning beyond the bare property names, though it could be richer with range or indexing details.

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 tool's function: 'Reset all parameters of a Playfield drum sample to defaults.' This uses a specific verb with a precise resource and scope, and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'set_playfield_sample_enabled' or 'create_playfield_sample'.

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 implies usage (when you need to reset all Playfield sample parameters), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or conditions. No sibling tools are referenced as alternatives.

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