mcp_opendaw_set_piano_keyboard

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that the operation returns success along with the old and new values, giving insight into the response behavior. However, it does not mention side effects on existing piano roll data, error handling, or whether the change is reversible. Still, for a simple setter, this is respectable coverage.

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 two sentences long and front-loads the core action. The first sentence states the purpose; the second provides parameter details and return behavior. Every word is informative, with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter setter, the description is complete: it specifies the parameter's allowed values, the domain (piano roll), and the return format. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to elaborate further on return structure. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema only defines keyboard_type as an integer with no description or enum, and schema coverage is 0%. The description fully compensates by explicitly listing valid integer values (88, 76, 61, 49) and human-readable labels (full piano, stage, compact, controller). This adds crucial meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 a clear, specific action: 'Set the piano roll keyboard type.' This identifies the exact resource (piano roll keyboard) and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_piano_note_scale or set_piano_mode. The valid values are also enumerated, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to change the piano roll keyboard size) and lists all valid options. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the purpose is obvious enough that a user can infer appropriate usage. No exclusion criteria are given, which would be needed for a 5.

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