mcp_opendaw_set_vocoder_modulator_source

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the responsibility of disclosing behavior. It states the action ('Set') and lists allowed source values, which clarifies that it is a mutation of a setting. However, it does not describe side effects, prerequisites beyond the effect type, or error behavior. The listing of valid source values adds some transparency, but the description is relatively thin.

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 and well-structured: a single opening sentence followed by a bullet list of parameter explanations. No unnecessary words or repetition. Every sentence carries information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 operation, the description covers the essential context: the target effect type (Vocoder) and the parameter meanings. It does not explain return values, but an output schema exists and likely covers that. Missing are details about side effects or behavior when constraints are violated, but given the low complexity, the description is nearly 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 input schema provides only names, types, and required status, with 0% schema description coverage. The description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: unit_index as 'AU index', effect_index with the constraint 'must be a Vocoder', and source with an explicit list of allowed values ('noise-white', 'noise-pink', 'noise-brown', 'self', 'external'). This adds substantial meaning 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 function: 'Set the modulator source on a Vocoder effect.' This uses a specific verb ('set') and a specific resource ('modulator source on a Vocoder effect'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_vocoder_band_count. 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 usage context by specifying that effect_index 'must be a Vocoder', but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or alternative tools (e.g., generic set_effect_parameter). The constraint provides some guidance, but the 'when' is only implied.

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