mcp_opendaw_set_crusher_bits

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema: the bits parameter mapping (16=no crushing, 1=extreme) and the requirement that effect_index must reference a Crusher. This helps the agent understand the effect of the parameter and preconditions. It does not disclose error handling or side effects, but for a simple setter this is reasonably transparent.

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 compact: one action sentence followed by three bullet-style parameter lines. It front-loads the core purpose, and every line adds necessary information without redundancy or fluff. Ideal structure for a parameter-focused tool.

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 tool's low complexity, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, all parameters with ranges, and a key prerequisite (must be a Crusher). The presence of an output schema likely documents return values, so that omission is acceptable. Still, it could benefit from mentioning behavior on invalid indices or non-Crusher effects, but this is not critical for a simple setter.

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. It does so fully: each parameter is explained with a concise line — unit_index ('AU index'), effect_index ('Effect index in the audio effect chain (must be a Crusher)'), and bits ('Bit depth (1-16, where 16=no crushing, 1=extreme)'). This adds semantic meaning and range details that the 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 clearly states the action: 'Set the bit depth on a Crusher (bitcrusher) effect.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like set_crusher_crush (which presumably sets crush amount, not bit depth) and generic set_effect_parameter_int. The scope is 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 usage (when you need to adjust bit depth on a Crusher effect) and provides a constraint ('effect_index must be a Crusher'), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. No when/when-not guidance beyond the inherent type restriction.

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