mcp_opendaw_set_unit_minimized

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the behavior that returns include old and new minimized state, and explains the effect of the boolean parameter. It omits edge cases and side effects, but the tool's scope is narrow and the behavior is adequately disclosed for a UI toggle.

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 compact and front-loaded with a purpose statement. Each additional sentence adds value: rationale for the feature, parameter semantics, and return behavior. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 a narrow scope, the description covers what it does, when it's useful, what each parameter means, and what it returns. The presence of an output schema (even if not visible) reduces the need to describe the return structure. Minor details like error handling are omitted but are not critical for this UI toggle.

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 only types/titles; the description adds the missing semantic for both parameters: unit_index as 'AU index' and minimized as 'True to minimize, False to expand.' 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 verb phrase 'Minimize or expand an audio unit in the mixer view,' clearly identifying the action and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling mixer/setter tools by focusing on the audio unit's minimized state rather than volume, effects, or track parameters.

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?

It provides a clear use case ('useful for decluttering when working with many tracks') but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or mention alternative tools. This is contextual guidance without exclusions, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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