mcp_opendaw_switch_phase

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It reveals the key behavior—switching phase changes which tools are registered—and conditional behavior on OPENDAW_MCP_MODE. However, it does not clarify what happens when the mode is not 'phase', whether the phase persists across sessions, or whether the tool is reversible (e.g., can you switch back). These are minor gaps.

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 well-organized: a clear opening statement, a concise context explanation, a bulleted phase list, and illustrative examples. All content is necessary and additive; no filler 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 tool with one parameter and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality, valid values, and usage examples. It does not address non-phase-mode behavior or whether the change is persistent, but these are edge cases. The output schema exists, so return values are not the description's responsibility.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the required 'phase' parameter. The description fully compensates by listing the four valid values (inspect, compose, mix, render) and explaining what tools each includes, plus examples. This gives the agent all needed parameter semantics.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Switch the active tool phase for phase-based tool loading.' It also explains the motivation (reducing schema payload by showing only relevant tools), which distinguishes it from all sibling tools as a meta-tool controlling tool availability.

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 explains the context (when OPENDAW_MCP_MODE=phase) and maps each phase to its tool categories, giving clear usage context. It provides examples like switch_phase('compose') for composition tools. It does not explicitly state 'use this when you need tools from a different phase' as a directive, but the phase list makes this obvious.

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