mcp_opendaw_export_dry_stem

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains what the tool captures (raw instrument output before effects, sends, volume/pan) and states the return value (path to WAV and audio metadata). It does not mention potential side effects like file overwriting or engine prerequisites, but for an export 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 well-structured with a concise summary, a clear contrast to the sibling tool, a bulleted parameter list, and a return value statement. Every sentence adds value and there is 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?

The description is complete for a tool with three simple parameters: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, parameter constraints, and return values. An output schema exists, so return details are adequately covered, and no further context is needed for correct invocation.

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 provides only titles and types, but the description adds crucial semantics for all three parameters: unit_index must be > 0 and not the output AU, filename is without .wav extension, and sample_rate defaults to 48000. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 the tool exports a single audio unit as a DRY stem, specifying it captures raw instrument output with no effects or channel strip. It explicitly distinguishes itself from export_single_stem, which routes through the channel strip, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 contrasts this tool with export_single_stem, clarifying when to use each variant. It also provides concrete use cases (freezing, flattening, re-amping) and notes the constraint that unit_index must not be the output AU, giving clear context for selection.

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