mcp_opendaw_set_delay_sync

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 constraint that the effect must be a Delay and lists the allowed fraction values. However, it does not mention side effects, reversibility, error behavior, or whether the delay must be in sync mode. Mutation is implied but not explicitly stated.

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 the purpose, followed by a compact parameter breakdown and a necessary enumeration of fraction values. Every sentence and element serves a clear function, with no 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?

For a three-parameter setter with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, parameter meanings, and allowed values. It does not discuss output or error handling, but the existence of an output schema suggests return values are documented elsewhere.

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 defines each parameter: unit_index as 'AU index', effect_index as 'Effect index in the audio effect chain', and fraction with a complete list of allowed values. It provides basic meaning but lacks guidance on how to find the indices.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Set the synced delay time on a Delay effect using a musical fraction string.' It explicitly identifies the resource (Delay effect) and the operation (setting synced delay time), and naturally distinguishes from generic effect setters like set_effect_parameter.

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 context for when to use the tool: to set a synced delay time using a musical fraction, and it includes a prerequisite ('must be a Delay'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the specificity of the purpose makes the usage context clear.

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