mcp_opendaw_auto_gain

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the iterative loop (render → measure LUFS → adjust Maximizer threshold → re-render), convergence tolerance (±1 LUFS), and return values (final LUFS, threshold, iterations, WAV path). It does not state side effects on the project (e.g., whether the original mix is modified), but it gives substantial insight into its operation.

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 purpose, a concise algorithm outline, a bullet-style parameter list, and a clear return statement. Every sentence adds meaningful information without repetition or unnecessary detail.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, algorithm, parameter semantics, and return values. Since an output schema exists, return details need not be exhaustive. The main missing piece is whether the tool operates on the entire project mix or a specific track, but the name and 'output volume' imply the master output. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 explains all four parameters thoroughly: target_lufs includes platform examples, filename notes that no .wav extension is appended, sample_rate and max_iterations both state defaults. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and adds practical guidance.

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 first sentence explicitly states the tool's function: 'Auto-adjust output volume to hit a target LUFS.' This uses a specific verb (auto-adjust), resource (output volume), and outcome (target LUFS), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like measure_lufs (measurement only) or export_mix (export only).

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 the tool by mentioning common streaming loudness targets (Spotify -14, YouTube -14, Apple -16) and describing the iterative process to achieve a target. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the use case is strongly implied through these examples.

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