mcp_opendaw_export_preset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses internal mechanism (PresetEncoder.encode), dependencies (instrument, effects, etc.), base64 encoding, and return type. It is transparent about what gets serialized.

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 concise (approx. 100 words), front-loaded with the main purpose, then technical details, then parameter explanations. No redundant sentences.

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 output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, but it still mentions returning base64 bytes and metadata. It covers all necessary aspects for a 2-parameter 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%, so description must add meaning. It explains unit_index must be an instrument (not Output) and include_timeline includes tracks/regions/notes. This goes beyond the schema's titles.

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 an audio unit as a preset in base64-encoded format. It specifies the verb 'export', the resource 'audio unit', and the output format. This distinguishes it from siblings like export_midi or export_stems.

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 through parameter constraints (unit_index must be an instrument, not Output) but does not explicitly compare to other export tools or state when to prefer this one. No alternatives are mentioned.

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