mcp_opendaw_export_dry_stem

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool captures raw output before audio effects, sends, volume/pan processing. It also notes unit_index must be >0 and not the output AU. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether it replaces original audio) or error conditions.

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?

Well-structured with three clear paragraphs: purpose, comparison, parameters. Some slight redundancy in describing 'no effects' but overall efficient. Every sentence 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?

Covers purpose, comparison, parameter constraints, and use cases. Has output schema so return values are documented elsewhere. Lacks information on file location, persistence, or blocking behavior, but adequate for a straightforward export tool.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description provides meaningful parameter explanations: unit_index must be >0 and not output AU, filename without .wav extension, sample_rate default 48000. This adds critical context 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 exports a single audio unit as a DRY stem, contrasting it with export_single_stem which includes effects. It specifies the resource (audio unit), the action (export), and the concept of dry stem (no effects/channel strip).

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool versus export_single_stem: 'Unlike export_single_stem (which routes through the channel strip with effects), this captures the raw instrument output...' Also lists use cases: freezing, flattening, re-amping.

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