mcp_opendaw_set_audio_region_gain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the underlying Float32Field and that the tool returns the updated gain value, but it does not address potential side effects, undo behavior, or error conditions. It gives some useful domain context (dB scale examples) but lacks deeper transparency about the operation's impact.

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 concise and well-structured: first sentence states the action, second gives context, followed by a compact parameter list, and ends with the return value. Every sentence earns its place with no filler 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?

For a simple setter tool, the description is fairly complete: it explains the gain semantics, lists all parameters, and states the return value. It does not mention zero-based indexing or how to obtain the indices, nor error handling, but the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling listing tools mitigate this gap. It is more complete than the mid-calibration example.

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?

Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the description compensates by listing all four parameters with brief definitions. It adds meaningful semantics for gain_db with concrete examples ('0 = unity, -6 = half volume, +6 = double'), which goes beyond the bare schema type. The index descriptions are merely restatements, but the overall parameter guidance is adequate.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Set gain (in dB) on an audio region.' It further distinguishes itself by mentioning the per-region gain control and its use case (trim automation or balancing clips), which sets it apart from sibling tools like set_track_volume or set_audio_region_fade.

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 usage context: 'Use this for trim automation or balancing clips within a track.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the stated purpose effectively guides the agent in selecting this tool over other setter tools.

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