mcp_opendaw_export_preset

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 serialization includes all dependencies and that the output is base64-encoded, and mentions potential error return. However, it does not explicitly state whether this operation is non-destructive or if any permissions are needed. The term 'export' implies read-only, but the description could be more explicit about not modifying the project state.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose, a brief implementation note, then parameter explanations and return info. Every sentence contributes value; no filler or repetition. The first line is front-loaded with the core function, making it easy for an agent to quickly identify the tool's purpose.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description appropriately summarizes the return value without going into detail. It covers the tool's scope, parameters, and constraints. The only gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from related tools like import_preset or export_effect_chain, but this is a minor omission given other strengths.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates fully by explaining both parameters. It states that unit_index is the AU index to export and must be an instrument, not Output, and that include_timeline controls whether tracks/regions/notes are included. This adds meaningful constraints and semantics beyond the bare schema fields.

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 clear verb+resource: 'Export an audio unit as a preset (base64-encoded binary).' It specifies the output format, the serialization approach with dependencies, and even clarifies that the unit must be an instrument. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_midi or export_stems.

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: exporting an audio unit preset with optional timeline inclusion. It also gives a concrete constraint ('must be an instrument, not Output'), which helps the agent avoid invalid calls. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it lacks the full exclusions that would earn a 5.

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