mcp_opendaw_set_tuning

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action itself and offers parameter examples, but does not mention whether the setting is global or per-track, whether it affects playback or recording, whether it is reversible, or if any prerequisites exist (e.g., engine running). This is a notable gap for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences, with the purpose in the first and parameter details in the second. There is no filler or redundant information. Every sentence serves a clear function, making it easy to parse.

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 with only one parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the essential semantics: what the tool does and what the parameter means. It lacks broader context about the scope (global vs. per-track) but this is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema that likely covers return values.

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 has 0% description coverage (only type 'integer' and title 'Frequency'), so the description must compensate. It does so excellently: 'A4 frequency in Hz. Default 440. Common alternatives: 432 (verdi), 415 (baroque), 466 (baroque organ).' This adds units, a default, and meaningful examples, going well beyond the 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Set the A4 base frequency (concert pitch tuning).' It uses a specific verb ('set') and resource ('A4 base frequency'), and the parenthetical 'concert pitch tuning' distinguishes it from other set tools like set_bpm or set_time_signature. This is unambiguous and not a tautology.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide prerequisites or exclusions. The use case is implied by the tool name and the phrase 'concert pitch tuning,' but there is no direct guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools. This is implied usage rather than explicit, warranting a midpoint score.

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