mcp_opendaw_set_groove_shuffle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides a useful mapping of amount values (0.0, 1.0, typical values) but doesn't mention side effects, reversibility, or whether it applies to the entire project or just selected regions. The 'set' verb implies mutation but lacks safety details.

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, with three lines each adding value: the action, the numeric scale, and typical examples. It's front-loaded and doesn't waste words.

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 description covers the main parameter semantics and the output schema handles return values. However, the type mismatch with the schema undermines completeness; an agent cannot safely use the tool without resolving this contradiction. It's adequate but with a critical gap.

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's values (0.0, 0.15, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0) directly contradict the input schema's parameter type of 'integer'. This is a critical inconsistency that would mislead an agent into passing a float, causing validation errors. The description adds meaning but it's incompatible with the 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 clearly states the action ('Set the groove/shuffle (swing) amount') and identifies the target resource ('for the project'). It distinguishes itself by focusing on the project-level swing setting, which differentiates it from other rhythm tools like apply_swing.

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 the tool is for setting the global swing/groove amount, providing clear context. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the singular parameter and project scope make the use case clear.

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