mcp_opendaw_set_stereo_tool_panning

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the allowable values for panning_mixing (0=linear, 1=equal-power, or other supported values), which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is reversible, whether it triggers any side effects, or what the return value/output is. This is adequate for a simple setter but leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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: a one-sentence purpose followed by three compact parameter lines. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core purpose before parameter details. No fluff 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?

For a simple setter, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, all parameter meanings, and constraints (must be StereoTool). The presence of an output schema means return-value details are not required in the description. A minor gap is the lack of guidance on what happens if effect_index does not point to a StereoTool, but this is not critical for a basic setter.

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 description explicitly defines all three parameters, adding semantic meaning beyond the input schema's bare titles. It clarifies that unit_index is the AU index, effect_index is the index in the audio effect chain (with the StereoTool requirement), and panning_mixing includes explicit value mappings. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 action-verb and resource: 'Set the panning mixing mode on a StereoTool effect.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like set_track_panning (which targets track-level panning) and generic set_effect_parameter tools. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 (when a StereoTool exists in the effect chain) by stating 'must be a StereoTool.' However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as set_effect_parameter_int or other effect-specific setters. It provides a necessary precondition but no exclusion or alternative guidance.

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