mcp_opendaw_replace_from_preset

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

With no annotations, the description alone must disclose behavior. It explains the swapping action and optional preservation of effects/timeline, but does not detail side effects (e.g., whether the preset is consumed, if the unit is modified in place) or error conditions beyond 'success or error'. The output is not described, though an output schema exists.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a technical reference, a precondition, and a clean parameter list. It is concise with no wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, many siblings), the description covers the essential: purpose, parameters, precondition. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. However, it could provide more detail on the return value (though an output schema exists) and error 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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by providing clear, contextual explanations for each parameter: unit_index ('Target AU index'), preset_b64 ('Base64 preset bytes from export_preset'), and the three boolean keep flags with their effects. This adds meaning 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 the action ('Replace an audio unit's instrument/effects/timeline from a preset'), specifies the method (Uses PresetDecoder.replaceAudioUnit), and distinguishes from generic replace tools by emphasizing preset-based replacement. It also notes compatibility constraints (MIDI→MIDI, Audio→Audio).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when replacing an audio unit's instrument from a preset while optionally keeping certain elements. It specifies a precondition (compatible instrument type), but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it.

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