mcp_opendaw_set_clip_properties

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 does reveal important behaviors: skip semantics for optional updates, that it operates on session-view clips, and that it 'Returns updated clip properties.' However, it does not address error cases, side effects, or permissions, leaving room for improvement.

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. It leads with a clear purpose, then uses a compact parameter list with inline skip semantics. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 7 required parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers all parameter meanings, special sentinel values, and the return value. It lacks explicit statements about index base (zero vs one) and error handling for invalid indices, but overall it's sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so excellently by explaining every parameter, including skip values, ranges (hue 0-360), source (clip_index from list_clips), and units (duration in beats). This is far beyond the bare schema titles.

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: 'Set properties on a clip (session view): label, color, mute, duration.' This specific verb+resource+fields combination distinguishes it from single-property siblings like set_clip_mute, set_clip_label, and set_clip_hue, and the session view qualifier adds further specificity.

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 set multiple clip properties at once. It hints at a workflow by noting 'clip_index (from list_clips).' However, it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling set_clip_* tools or states when NOT to use this tool, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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