mcp_opendaw_set_piano_note_labels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the mutation (setter/toggle) and the return values (old and new), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention scope (e.g., all tracks vs current) or side effects.

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 three concise sentences: purpose, parameter explanation, and return behavior. No fluff, front-loaded with the main action.

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 simple one-parameter setter with an output schema (not shown), the description covers the essentials: what, how, and return. It's mostly complete, though the lack of scope clarification (global vs track-specific) leaves a minor gap.

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%, so the description fully compensates by explaining the boolean parameter's meaning: 'True to show note labels, false to hide.' This adds complete semantic clarity beyond the schema's bare title.

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 specific action: toggling note labels in the piano roll, with examples of the label types. It's distinct from sibling tools by focusing on labels, not scale or other piano settings.

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 implies usage when you want to show or hide note labels, but doesn't explicitly discuss when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., set_piano_note_scale). No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided.

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