mcp_opendaw_set_waveshaper_equation

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the existing equation is overwritten, any side effects, or what happens if the effect is not a Waveshaper. The description only states the action with no behavioral consequences.

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 efficiently structured: one purpose sentence, then each parameter explained in a compact format, followed by a bullet-style list of equation values. No redundant wording or unnecessary detail. Every line adds value.

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 straightforward setter with three parameters, the description covers purpose, parameter semantics, and the range of equation values. The output schema exists, so return value is assumed. It could mention error behavior, but overall it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates. It defines unit_index as 'AU index', effect_index with a constraint, and equation with six named options, each accompanied by a concise sonic description (e.g., 'tanh: classic smooth saturation'). This goes 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 opens with 'Set the transfer function equation on a Waveshaper effect.' This is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like generic effect setters by targeting the waveshaper specifically.

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 states a key constraint ('effect_index ... must be a Waveshaper') and includes a detailed list of equation choices with descriptions, helping the agent choose appropriate values. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the specialized nature and the constraint provide clear context for when to use this tool.

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