mcp_opendaw_set_clip_playback

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the skip behavior ('Pass None...'), the return value ('Returns updated playback values.'), and clarifies which fields are modified. It also notes the clip's ClipPlaybackFields object, acknowledging other fields (quantise, trigger) that are not affected. This goes beyond a bare mutation description, though it does not cover potential errors or side effects.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose and structured with bullet-point lists. However, loop/reverse/speed definitions are repeated in both the ClipPlaybackFields section and the parameter list, creating redundancy. It could be more concise without losing meaning.

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?

The description covers the essential aspects: purpose, all parameters, the None-skip behavior, and the return type. Since an output schema exists, the return values are likely documented elsewhere. Missing details like error handling or prerequisites beyond 'from list_clips' are not critical for a simple setter tool, making this sufficiently complete.

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 zero description coverage, so the description fully compensates. It explains every parameter (loop, reverse, speed, unit_index, track_index, clip_index) in plain language, including the meaning of speed ('1 = normal') and the None-skip semantics. This adds substantial value beyond the raw 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set clip playback parameters (loop, reverse, speed) on a clip.' This identifies the specific verb (set), resource (clip playback parameters), and scope (loop, reverse, speed), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_clip_properties or set_clip_mute.

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 use context by stating it sets playback parameters and includes a prerequisite hint: 'clip_index: Clip index (from list_clips)'. It also explains the skip behavior ('Pass None for any parameter to skip changing it'), which is useful operational guidance. However, no explicit alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, so it falls short of a 5.

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