mcp_opendaw_connect_sidechain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral requirement: the target effect must have a sideChain field and be of specific types. Does not warn about potential overwriting of existing sidechain connections or errors, but is fairly transparent for a connection 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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary followed by a bulleted parameter list and a constraint note. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 output schema exists and the operation is moderately simple, the description covers the necessary context: what it does, how parameters work, and which effects are supported. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 has zero description coverage, but the description explains all three parameters with examples: source_unit_index (drums), target_unit_index (bass), and effect_index (position on target). This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Connect one audio unit's output as sidechain source to a Compressor/Gate on another unit.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like apply_sidechain by emphasizing the connection action and target effect types.

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?

Provides clear context by naming example units (drums, bass) and constraining the target effect to Compressor, Gate, Vocoder, or any effect with Pointers.SideChain. Lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or alternative recommendation, so not a 5.

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