mcp_opendaw_create_audio_bus

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses internal behavior: creates AudioUnitBox, AudioBusBox, TrackBox, wires them together, and returns the new bus index. The implementation caveat about separate editing.modify() blocks and pointer refer() failure is useful, but it doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or potential side effects.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The implementation detail and parameter definition each add value, and there is no redundant filler. The structure clearly separates purpose, technical caveat, parameter, and return 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?

For a one-parameter creation tool with an output schema present, the description provides enough context: what it creates, how it wires internal objects, what the name parameter means, and what it returns. It lacks comparison to sibling bus/send tools, but given the simple scope this is sufficient.

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 one parameter (name) with no description, and the description explicitly says 'name: Bus label.' This adds meaning beyond the schema. It also clarifies the return value, which helps the agent understand the result. No constraints or format details are given, but for a single simple parameter the coverage is adequate.

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?

States a specific action: 'Create a new audio bus (aux bus) with its own audio unit and track.' This clearly identifies the verb and resource, and the added detail about audio unit/track wiring gives concrete scope. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools to distinguish from, but the core purpose is unmistakable.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_send, list_audio_buses, or create_audio_track. The description provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or recommended use cases. It simply states what the tool does rather than when to invoke it.

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