mcp_opendaw_set_script_param

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses exact validation behavior per type (bool snapping, int rounding, linear/exp/unipolar clamping) and mentions the `clamped` flag and `range` info in the response. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral information beyond what the schema provides.

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 concise and front-loaded, with a clear action sentence followed by a compact bullet list of validation behaviors. Every sentence adds useful information—prerequisite, per-type behavior, and response details—without padding or repetition.

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?

The description covers the core operation and value validation well, and an output schema exists so return-value details are not mandatory. However, it omits error behavior when the parameter does not exist and does not explain how to correctly identify the target device via the three identifier parameters, which is a notable gap given the 0% schema coverage.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all parameters. It explains `value` and `param_label` well, but `device_type`, `unit_index`, and `device_index` are left entirely unexplained. The three identifier parameters are ambiguous in a DAW context, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema metadata.

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 specific verb+resource+scope: "Set a parameter value on a scriptable device by label." This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_script_params or set_effect_parameter by focusing on scriptable device parameters addressed by label.

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 gives clear context: the parameter must already exist as a `// @param` declaration, implying it is meant to be used after setting script code and perhaps after listing script params. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the prerequisite is a useful usage guideline.

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