mcp_opendaw_remove_audio_bus

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 that the tool removes an audio unit and cannot remove the primary bus, but does not detail side effects like irreversibility, permissions required, or impact on other routing. This is insufficient for a destructive action.

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, with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by parameter details and a constraint. No unnecessary information.

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's simplicity (two parameters, output schema exists), the description covers the key aspects: purpose, identification, and constraint. It could mention the irreversible nature or expected output but is largely adequate.

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%, but the description provides clear guidance for both parameters: bus_index must be from list_audio_buses and >0, fx_unit_index from create_send. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 it removes an FX audio bus and its associated audio unit, specifies two identification methods (bus_index or fx_unit_index), and includes a constraint (cannot remove primary bus index 0). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_audio_bus or remove_send by being the only removal tool for buses.

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 when to use the tool (to remove an FX audio bus) and how to identify the bus (from list_audio_buses or create_send). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like remove_send for removing only the routing.

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