mcp_opendaw_set_midi_effect_param

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 communicates mutation through 'Set' and mentions that old and new values are returned, but it does not clarify precedence when both param_name and param_index are supplied or error behavior, leaving minor ambiguity.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a single sentence, followed by one line per parameter and a final return-value note. There is no fluff or redundant restatement of schema types.

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 five-parameter setter with an output schema, the description covers identification (unit_index, effect_index), selection (param_name or param_index), value type (number), and return values. It provides sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly without needing the output schema details.

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%, yet the description documents every one of the five parameters, including examples for param_name ('semiTones', 'rateIndex', 'gate') and the sentinel behavior of param_index (-1 = use name). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 immediately states a specific action ('Set a parameter on a MIDI effect'), and the parameter list clarifies that this targets MIDI effect chains. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_effect_parameter and set_instrument_param by resource type.

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 opening line gives clear context: use this tool when you need to set a parameter on a MIDI effect, identified by unit_index and effect_index. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the MIDI-effect scoping is enough to guide tool selection among many similar setters.

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