mcp_opendaw_engine_wake

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It clearly indicates the state transition ('wake from sleep') and the consequence ('resumes audio processing'). It does not cover edge cases like behavior when already awake, but for a zero-parameter wake operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 two sentences with the primary action in the first sentence and the usage tip in the second. There is no filler or redundant information.

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 zero-parameter state-transition tool, the description covers the action, the result, and the usage trigger. An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be explained. The sibling context further confirms the pairing with engine_sleep.

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 tool has 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter details since there are none.

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 ('wake') and resource ('audio engine'), and further clarifies the result ('resumes audio processing'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling engine tools like engine_sleep and start_engine.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use after sleep() when audio playback is needed again.' This is clear contextual guidance, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the implicit sleep() pairing.

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