mcp_opendaw_set_playfield_sample_enabled

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It clearly states that setting enabled to false mutes the pad, and explains the auto-detect behavior of unit_index. However, it does not disclose return values, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible, leaving some behavioral aspects unknown.

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 highly concise: a single-sentence summary followed by three bullet-point parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or irrelevant content.

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?

Given the simple nature of the tool and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the core action and parameters adequately. However, it lacks usage context (when to use vs. siblings) and preconditions (e.g., whether the unit must already exist), making it not fully complete for an agent selecting the tool.

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 provides no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description compensates fully by explaining each parameter: sample_index is a 0-based pad index, enabled toggles enable/mute, and unit_index supports -1 for auto-detect. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Enable/disable') and clearly identifies the resource ('a drum pad on a Playfield drum machine'). It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like list_playfield_samples and create_playfield_sample by indicating its action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It does not mention related tools such as create_playfield_sample or list_playfield_samples, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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