mcp_opendaw_create_send

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so excellently. It discloses exactly what gets created (new AudioBusBox, AudioUnitBox, AuxSendBox), what happens to the dry signal, that it's a parallel send not a redirect, and what it returns (send_index and fx_unit_index). This is rich, honest behavioral disclosure.

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 longer than average but well-structured: summary sentence, detailed behavior, parameter definitions, return values, and workflow. Each section adds value, and the front-loaded summary helps immediate comprehension. It could be slightly trimmed but is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 purpose, behavior, all parameters, return values, and a workflow, making it fully self-contained despite the bare schema and lack of annotations. The output schema exists, but the description already explains the key return fields. It's hard to imagine a gap that an agent would need filled.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It does: src_unit is described as the source audio unit index, name includes examples, send_level_db gives a range (-∞ to +12) and a suggested starting point (-6dB), and routing enumerates 'pre' vs 'post' with default. All four params are meaningfully explained.

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: 'Create a parallel FX send bus from an audio unit.' It then explains the mechanics (new AudioBusBox, AuxSendBox, dry signal continues) and explicitly distinguishes from a redirect, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and differentiating it from sibling tools like create_audio_bus.

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: it's a parallel send workflow, and it states 'not a redirect'. It also gives a sequential workflow (create_instrument_track → create_send → add_effect) and explains that the FX bus unit index is used for adding effects. It doesn't explicitly list alternative tools for when not to use it, but the context is strong enough.

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