mcp_opendaw_set_effect_parameter_bool

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 adds useful behavioral context by enumerating which boolean fields exist per device (e.g., Compressor lookahead, Gate inverse), including a caveat for Delay 'freeTimeSync (if available)'. However, it does not disclose side effects, error behavior, or reversibility of the mutation, leaving transparency partial.

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 concise and front-loaded. The opening sentence states the core purpose, followed by a compact bulleted list of device-specific fields. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting improves scannability.

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 setter tool with a simple schema, the description provides all necessary context: device-specific valid parameter names, index semantics, and value type. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. The 'if available' caveat for Delay shows attention to edge cases, making the tool self-contained.

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% and the schema only provides types/titles. The description compensates by explaining each parameter: unit_index as 'Audio unit index', effect_index as 'Effect position in the chain (0-based)', parameter_name with concrete examples, and value as 'true or false'. It adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'Set a boolean parameter on an audio effect.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling setters by specifying 'boolean parameter' and referencing the generic float setter. The device-specific field list further clarifies the exact scope.

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 explains when to use this tool: for device-specific boolean fields not exposed through the generic float setter. It lists the applicable devices and fields, giving concrete usage context. It names the 'generic float setter' as an alternative but does not explicitly mention int/string setters or provide when-not-to-use exclusions.

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