mcp_opendaw_set_bus_enabled

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the effect of the `enabled` parameter (true = enable, false = mute) and the source of `bus_index`, which is helpful. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., whether muting affects sends, persistence, or whether the operation is reversible) beyond the immediate parameter mapping. This is adequate but not rich.

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 three lines, front-loaded with the core action, and each line serves a distinct purpose: describing the action, then defining parameters. There is no fluff or repetition. It is concise and well-structured.

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 two-parameter setter with an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers the tool's behavior, parameter sourcing, and a key convention (0 = primary output). It doesn't mention error conditions like an invalid bus index, but given the existence of an output schema and the simple nature of the operation, this is a minor gap. A more careful description might note that the bus must already exist or be visible from list_audio_buses.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does excellently. It explains the exact meaning and provenance of `bus_index` ('from list_audio_buses, 0 = primary output') and the meaning of `enabled` (True to enable, False to mute). This fully clarifies both parameters beyond the bare schema types.

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: 'Enable or mute an audio bus' with a specific resource (audio bus) and action. The parenthetical '(FX bus A/B comparison)' adds a concrete use case, distinguishing it from other setter tools like set_track_mute. The verb and resource are specific and 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 implies the usage context by mentioning 'FX bus A/B comparison,' which tells the agent when this tool is useful. It does not explicitly exclude other tools or name alternatives, but the context is clear enough for selection among the large sibling set. Slight deduction for lack of explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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