mcp_opendaw_set_effect_parameter

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 reveals that the tool mutates an effect parameter and mentions numeric vs string handling, but the string special case is contradictory ('pass the string as parameter_name=value pair' vs example using 0), and it omits side effects, validation, and error behavior.

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 starts with a clear purpose, but the repeated and confusing string-parameter guidance wastes words and undermines clarity. Examples are helpful, but the 'Use string_value for equation' comment adds confusion rather than value.

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?

The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the description is not complete enough for an agent to safely invoke this tool among its typed siblings. It lacks clear preconditions (effect must exist, parameter must be numeric), and the contradictory string guidance could lead to incorrect calls.

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?

All four parameters are explained, compensating for the 0% schema coverage, with useful examples. However, the description of the 'value' parameter is internally inconsistent: it says strings can be passed for params like 'equation', but the schema defines value as a number and the example passes 0, so the actual semantics are unclear.

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 first sentence clearly states an action ('Set') and a target ('parameter on an audio effect'), and the parameter descriptions further define the resource. However, it does not distinguish this generic setter from sibling typed setters (mcp_opendaw_set_effect_parameter_bool/int/string), nor explain when to prefer this one.

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?

It provides useful context: parameter_name should come from mcp_opendaw_list_effect_parameters, and it gives concrete examples. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the dedicated bool/int/string setters, and the 'string params' guidance is ambiguous.

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