mcp_opendaw_set_crusher_crush

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the full burden. It discloses the inverted internal scaling (0.0=clean, 1.0=inaudible) and maps specific values to audible characteristics (AM radio, glitchy), which is genuinely useful behavioral context beyond merely saying 'set a parameter.' It stops short of describing error behavior for non-Crusher effects or out-of-range values, but the provided mapping is substantial.

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 efficiently structured in two paragraphs: first the purpose, then the parameter details. Every sentence provides factual value—the frequency mapping is dense but necessary. No filler, and the formatting (bulleted parameter list) aids scanning.

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 parameter setter, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and critical behavioral nuance (inversion). An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. The description also flags the key prerequisite that the effect must be a Crusher. It is complete for this tool's complexity.

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 fully explains all three parameters: unit_index as AU index, effect_index as effect index in the chain (with the Crusher constraint), and crush with range and meaning (0-1, 0=clean, 1=max destruction). This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare 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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Set the sample-rate reduction (crush) on a Crusher effect.' This clearly differentiates from siblings like set_crusher_bits, which targets bit depth rather than sample-rate reduction. 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?

Usage context is implied: the tool is for adjusting crush on a Crusher effect, and the description notes that effect_index 'must be a Crusher,' providing a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like set_crusher_bits or generic set_effect_parameter, nor does it mention when not to use it.

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