mcp_opendaw_set_piano_time_range

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that the tool returns 'success with old and new values' and explains the practical meaning of the parameter, providing helpful transparency beyond the bare action.

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, with three clear sentences: purpose, parameter semantics, and return behavior. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy with the schema.

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 with an output schema, the description covers purpose, parameter meaning, valid range, and return behavior. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly without additional clarification.

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 provides zero description coverage, but the description compensates fully by documenting the parameter's unit ('quarter notes'), valid range ('1.0 to 64.0'), and behavioral effect ('Smaller = more zoomed in'). This is excellent parameter-level guidance.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Set the piano roll time range' with a clarifying parenthetical 'horizontal view width in quarter notes'. This precisely differentiates it from sibling piano tools like set_piano_keyboard or set_piano_note_scale.

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 when to use the tool by explaining the parameter's effect ('Smaller = more zoomed in'), but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage context is present but implicit.

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