mcp_opendaw_split_stems

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It reveals performance (GPU, time estimate), resampling behavior, and return value format. It does not mention destructiveness or auth requirements, but the mutation aspect (creating files) is implied.

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 with a clear hierarchy: purpose, hardware notes, parameter list, return value, and workflow examples. It is moderately long but 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?

Given 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, and an output schema, the description covers all parameters, return values, and provides workflow examples. It is comprehensive for the tool's complexity.

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%, yet the description explains each parameter thoroughly: input_path (format), mode (all options with descriptions), output_dir (default format), and import_to_daw (behavior and return value impact).

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 'Split' and resource 'audio file into stems', with specific mention of SOTA models. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'separate_stems' by detailing the model options and their stem counts.

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 detailed guidance on when to use each mode (e.g., 'ensemble: Max quality, 4 passes', 'bs6: 6-stem, fast, low bleeding') and explains the import_to_daw workflow. However, it does not explicitly compare with the similar sibling 'mcp_opendaw_separate_stems' or state when not to use this tool.

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