mcp_opendaw_set_effect_parameter_string

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It only enumerates parameters and examples without disclosing side effects (e.g., immediate mutation of the effect), reversibility, failure modes, or any behavioral consequences of setting the parameter.

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 two sentences plus a tight parameter list. Every line adds value, the purpose is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

All parameters are documented, and an output schema exists, so return value documentation is unnecessary. However, the description lacks guidance on how to discover valid parameter names or which effects support string parameters, and it does not mention error conditions. It is minimally sufficient but not rich.

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 provides concise definitions for all four parameters (unit_index, effect_index, parameter_name, string_value) and offers valid example values for string_value, adding meaningful detail 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 clearly states the action ('Set a string parameter') and the target resource ('audio effect'), with a concrete example (Waveshaper equation). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_effect_parameter_bool and set_effect_parameter_int.

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 implies usage for string-type effect parameters by its name and the example values, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like set_effect_parameter_int or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but not fully developed.

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