mcp_opendaw_set_fold_oversampling

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the value mapping (0/1/2) and the requirement that the effect must be a Fold, which is useful. However, it does not mention side effects, index conventions, or error conditions beyond the Fold requirement. For a mutation tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 four short lines, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by concise parameter definitions. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or 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 simple setter with three fully described parameters and an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It could optionally mention zero-based indexing or provide an example, but nothing critical is missing.

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%, but the description fully defines each parameter: unit_index as AU index, effect_index as effect index in the audio effect chain, and oversampling with explicit value meanings. This goes well beyond the schema's bare integer types.

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: 'Set the oversampling level on a Fold (wavefolding) effect.' This clearly distinguishes it from generic effect setters among siblings, as it targets a specific effect type and 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 by indicating the tool is for Fold effects, and explicitly states that effect_index must be a Fold. It does not name alternative tools or exclusion scenarios, but the constraint is enough to guide appropriate use.

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