mcp_opendaw_set_modular_module_param

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool returns success or error and provides meaningful parameter context (e.g., physical units for value), but it does not discuss side effects, prerequisites, or potential pitfalls like invalid parameter names. It is not misleading, but it is minimal.

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 front-loaded: one sentence for purpose, a bullet-like list of parameter meanings, and a one-sentence return note. Every sentence earns its place with no repetition or filler.

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 tool has five required parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions. The description provides enough detail to invoke it correctly, including the meaning of each parameter. It could further clarify valid ranges for indices or how to discover module types, but those are likely discoverable via sibling list tools, and the 'success or error' note covers return handling.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: au_index (Audio unit index), effect_index (Effect index within the AU), module_index (Module index), param_name with concrete examples, and value with units (dB, ms). This goes far beyond the bare schema field names.

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 a module in a Modular device.' It specifies the target resource (module parameter) and includes examples like "gain" for ModuleGain and "time" for ModuleDelay, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_effect_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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_effect_parameter or set_instrument_param. Usage is implied by the name and parameter context, but no exclusions or alternative references are provided, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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