mcp_opendaw_set_instrument_param

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose useful behaviors: auto-detection of the first non-master instrumented AU, the param_index alternative, and that it returns old and new values. However, it does not mention side effects, whether the change is reversible, or any required permissions/state assumptions, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure.

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 well-structured, using a single introductory sentence followed by clear per-parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value, and the examples for param_name are especially useful without being verbose.

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 four parameters are documented, and the return behavior (old and new values) is stated. The description does not mention how to discover valid param_name values (e.g., via list_instrument_params) and leaves some ambiguity about how to set param_name when using param_index, but overall it is quite complete for invocation.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: unit_index with auto-detect semantics, param_name with concrete examples, value as the new parameter value, and param_index as an alternative with sentinel behavior (-1 = use name). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw JSON 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 tool's action: 'Set a parameter on the instrument connected to an audio unit.' It is specific about the resource (instrument parameter) and provides helpful context like auto-detection. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like set_effect_parameter or set_midi_effect_param, so it does not fully achieve the top score.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It says 'Works with any instrument type' but does not mention when to use set_effect_parameter, list_instrument_params, or other related tools. No when-not-to-use or exclusion criteria are provided.

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