mcp_opendaw_set_note_properties

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

The statement 'Pass -1 for any parameter to skip changing it' is overbroad and misleading. Only the editable property parameters (position_beats, duration_beats, pitch, velocity, cent, chance) have explicit '-1 = skip' annotations, while unit_index has '-1 = search all AUs' (a different behavior) and track_index/region_index have no -1 behavior defined. This ambiguity could cause an agent to pass invalid -1 values for locator parameters. The tool also lacks disclosure of error handling or side effects beyond returning updated properties.

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 well-structured: a concise purpose sentence, a brief note about -1 skipping, followed by a clean bullet list of parameters with definitions. Every line adds value and there is no extraneous text. The most important usage hint (list_notes first) is front-loaded.

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 tool with 10 required parameters and zero schema descriptions, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and parameter ranges well. However, the ambiguity around -1 behavior for locator parameters and the absence of any guidance on finding unit/track/region indices (beyond list_notes) leaves gaps. The output schema likely covers return values, so that omission is acceptable, but the input semantics are not fully unambiguous.

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?

Each parameter has a one-line description with useful ranges (e.g., pitch 0-127, velocity 0-1, chance 0-100), which compensates for the 0% schema coverage. However, the -1 skip semantics are inconsistently applied across parameters: unit_index uses -1 for 'search all AUs' rather than skip, track_index and region_index have no -1 behavior stated, creating confusion about how to correctly set locator parameters.

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 'Edit properties of a single note within a region', which clearly specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from more specific note tools like set_note_cents by covering multiple properties, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for comparison.

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?

It provides a clear prerequisite: 'Use list_notes first to find the note_index.' This tells the agent how to prepare for using the tool. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for basic selection.

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