mcp_opendaw_delete_audio_unit

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive (destructiveHint: true), and the description adds useful behavioral details: it performs proper cleanup of connected boxes via ProjectApi.deleteAudioUnit(), and it protects the master output from deletion. This goes beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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 four short sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then the cleanup behavior, then the critical index constraint. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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 destructive tool, the description adequately covers what it deletes, how it cleans up, and the only special-case constraint (index 0). The output schema exists, so return details are not required. It is complete 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?

The input schema only provides the parameter name 'unit_index' as an integer with no description (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by explaining that unit_index identifies the audio unit to delete and must be >= 1 because index 0 is the master output. This gives the agent the necessary semantic constraint.

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 clearly states it deletes an entire audio unit with all its tracks, effects, and sends, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like mcp_opendaw_delete_track, mcp_opendaw_remove_effect, and mcp_opendaw_remove_send by emphasizing the whole-unit scope.

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 operational context by stating the primary output AU (index 0) cannot be deleted and requiring unit_index >= 1. It implies when to use this tool (full unit removal) versus alternatives like delete_track, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use scenarios.

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