mcp_opendaw_set_effect_enabled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It states the basic toggle behavior (enable/bypass) but omits details such as reversibility, impact on sound, error handling, or whether it triggers any processing changes. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a clear parameter list. Every sentence provides necessary information with no fluff or redundancy. The typo 'an specific' is minor.

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 toggle tool, the description covers the essential action and parameters. However, it lacks contextual information such as how to obtain valid indices (e.g., via list_effects or get_effect_chain), and the absence of a zero/one-based indexing note creates ambiguity. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described, but usage context is incomplete.

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 description adds clear meaning to all three parameters beyond the schema's bare titles, explaining unit_index as 'Audio unit index', effect_index as 'Effect position in the chain', and enabled as 'true to enable, false to bypass'. However, it does not clarify integer base (0-based vs 1-based) or value ranges, which could lead to incorrect invocations.

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 'Enable or bypass an effect on an audio unit' with a specific verb and resource. It is self-explanatory but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_effect_parameter or remove_effect, so it falls short of full sibling distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only defines parameters and does not mention prerequisites (e.g., obtaining valid unit_index/effect_index from list_effects) or exclusions for other effect-modification tools.

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