mcp_opendaw_update_automation_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the skip conditions (value >= 0, non-empty interpolation, curve_slope >= 0) and states that it returns success with updated values. However, it does not describe error handling (e.g., invalid event index) or the effect of partial updates on unspecified values, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 organized and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by per-parameter lines and a brief return statement. Every sentence adds useful information, though the format is slightly list-heavy. Still concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool mutates an automation event and has no annotations, the description covers essential context: identifying indices, update ranges, skip behavior, and return value. The reference to list_automation_events helps the agent obtain the correct event_index. It lacks error-case details but is sufficient for most update scenarios.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides detailed, meaningful semantics for all parameters: unit_index (AU index), track_index (value/automation track), event_index (from list_automation_events), value (normalized 0.0-1.0, skip if -1), interpolation (none/linear/curve, skip if empty), and curve_slope (0.0-1.0, skip if -1). This adds significant value beyond the raw 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 'Update an existing automation event's value and/or interpolation,' identifying the specific action (update) and resource (automation event). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_automation_event, delete_automation_event, and move_automation_event by focusing on modifying an existing event.

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 when to use the tool (when updating an existing automation event) and clarifies partial update semantics ('Only updates parameters that are provided'). It also references list_automation_events as a source for the event_index, providing useful context. There is no explicit exclusion of alternatives, but the context is clear.

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