mcp_opendaw_export_single_stem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the stem includes the effect chain but does not disclose whether the operation is destructive, requires specific permissions, or any side effects (e.g., file overwrite, format details). For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a concise sibling comparison, a parameter list, and a final note on the effect chain. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clean with line breaks.

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?

The description adequately explains input parameters and the effect chain inclusion but lacks details about the output (e.g., bit depth, channels, file location, overwrite behavior). Given that an output schema exists (per context), some of this may be covered there, making the description minimally viable.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: unit_index (must be >0, not output AU), filename (output filename), sample_rate (export sample rate). This adds critical constraints and purpose beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 verb 'export', resource 'single audio unit', and format 'stem WAV with its effect chain applied'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling 'export_stems' by contrasting scope (single vs all) and use case ('faster when you only need a specific stem').

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 provides a clear use case (when you need one stem) and explicitly contrasts with the sibling 'export_stems'. However, it does not include exclusions or prerequisites, such as whether the AU must be enabled or if the file will be overwritten.

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