mcp_opendaw_create_instrument_track

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool creates an instrument AU and track, connects to the output AU's bus, and returns unit_index and track_index. However, it does not mention potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., engine running), or whether the operation is reversible, which would be valuable for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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 three sentences, front-loading the core purpose, then adding a parameter note and return value info. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or unnecessary length.

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 single-parameter creation tool, the description covers the main aspects: what it creates, why it's needed, and what it returns. It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites or error conditions, but given the simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately.

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 provides only a parameter named 'name' with no description. The description compensates by explaining it is a 'Display name for the instrument (default "Tape")' and also documents the return values for use with place_audio_region. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare 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 uses a specific verb 'Create' and identifies the resource as 'a new instrument audio unit with a Tape device and an audio track'. It also explains why this is needed ('required for audio playback'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_synth_track or create_audio_track by focusing on the Tape device and output bus connection.

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: 'This is required for audio playback — the Tape device reads audio regions and outputs sound.' This implies the tool is essential for setting up playback, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, which is a minor gap.

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