mcp_opendaw_set_clip_hue

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior ('Returns success with old and new hue') and the hue range (0-360), but omits details about error conditions, side effects, or whether existing hue values are overwritten.

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: a purpose sentence, a parameter list, and a return-value note. Every sentence earns its place with no 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 with an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what is set, parameter meanings, and return behavior. It doesn't address possible failure scenarios, but given the output schema and simplicity, this is adequately complete for correct invocation.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: unit_index as AU index, track_index within the AU, clip_index, and hue range (0-360). This clarifies the hierarchical addressing scheme that the bare schema lacks.

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 states 'Set the color (hue) of a clip in the session view' with a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly indicates the exact attribute being modified, distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_clip_mute or set_clip_label.

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 for setting a clip's hue but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the 'session view' context but no exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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