mcp_opendaw_set_send_level

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the tool sets a send level but does not mention any side effects, constraints on level_db (e.g., range or clipping), error conditions for invalid indices, or what the tool returns. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the core operation.

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: one purpose sentence followed by two-sentence parameter definitions. It is front-loaded with the action and then provides exactly the needed parameter semantics. No waste, every line earns its place.

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 that this is a simple setter with an output schema, the description provides sufficient operational details: what the tool does, what each parameter means, and a hint about obtaining send_index from create_send. The main gap is behavioral transparency (covered separately), but for executing the call correctly, the description is largely complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It fully explains each parameter: src_unit is the source audio unit index, send_index is the send index obtained from create_send return, and level_db is the send level in dB. This is useful and goes beyond the bare schema, though it omits any range or constraint details.

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 states a clear action: 'Set the send level for an existing aux send.' This uses a specific verb ('set'), identifies the resource ('send level'), and scopes it to 'aux send.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like set_send_pan and set_send_routing, which address different aspects of sends.

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 phrase 'for an existing aux send' implies that the send must already have been created, and 'send_index ... from create_send return' provides a workflow hint. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., set_send_pan for panning) or mention of exclusions. Usage is implied rather than directly stated.

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