mcp_opendaw_analyze_mix

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds substantial context: it runs four analysis modules, produces 'prioritized mix_suggestions' and a 'master_check' with platform-specific LUFS targets. This goes beyond the annotation's safety signal, though it doesn't discuss error handling or performance characteristics.

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 and front-loaded: a one-sentence summary, followed by a numbered list of modules, output details, and an Args section. Every sentence provides value, and the formatting makes it easy to scan quickly. No redundant or filler content.

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?

For a complex tool combining four analyses with one parameter and an output schema, the description is thorough. It covers the purpose, the constituent modules, the output (suggestions, master_check, LUFS targets), and the filename parameter. Since an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return fields, and it provides enough context for correct usage.

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 one parameter (filename) with no description (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates: 'Name of the WAV file in the exports directory (without path), or absolute path to any WAV file.' This clearly explains the format and accepted alternatives, leaving no ambiguity.

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 provides 'complete mix diagnosis in one call' by combining track, spectrum, stereo, and dynamics analysis. It distinguishes itself from the individual analyze_* siblings by explicitly listing the four modules it aggregates, making the tool's purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

It offers clear guidance: 'The agent can call this single tool instead of 4 separate calls, getting a complete picture for mix decisions.' This implies using it when a holistic analysis is needed and names the individual alternatives, though it doesn't explicitly state when to use the separate tools (e.g., when only one analysis is needed).

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