mcp_opendaw_add_mastering_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does clearly state that the tool creates a chain (Revamp EQ → Compressor → Maximizer) on the output/master AU and returns effect indices and parameter values. However, it does not disclose whether this addition replaces or coexists with existing effects on the master bus, nor does it mention any destructive side effects or undo behavior—important for a mutating tool.

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 front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then uses bulleted lists efficiently for parameter details. The final 'Creates' and 'Returns' lines summarize the behavior without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 output schema exists and the description states what is returned, so that area is covered. It clearly defines the target (output bus), the exact effect chain, and the meaning of both parameters. The missing piece is side-effect transparency (whether existing master effects are overwritten), which is not specified but might be inferred from 'add.' Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description is largely complete but leaves this one behavioral gap.

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 schema descriptions are empty (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters. target_lufs is given concrete examples (-14 = Spotify, -16 = Apple, -10 = loud), and style is documented with four distinct preset names and their sonic characteristics. This provides far more semantic meaning than 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 opens with a precise action: 'Add a ready-made mastering chain to the output bus — EQ + compressor + maximizer in one call.' It specifies the resource (mastering chain), the target (output bus), and the composition (EQ + compressor + maximizer), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_effect or add_vocal_chain.

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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: when the user wants a ready-made mastering chain on the output bus, saving the need for multiple effect-adding steps. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives like manually adding effects or using apply_full_mix, but the 'in one call' phrasing implies a preferred workflow. No exclusions are stated, which prevents the score from reaching 5.

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