mcp_opendaw_export_single_stem

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the effect chain is applied, requires unit_index > 0 and not the output AU, and notes it's faster than batch export. However, it does not mention whether the operation modifies the project, writes to disk, or requires the engine to be running, leaving some behavioral ambiguity for a safe deployment.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose, comparison, then parameter list. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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 the moderate complexity and absence of annotations, the description covers core functionality, usage context, and parameter constraints. It could mention prerequisites like engine state or file path, but the presence of an output schema and clear export semantics make it reasonably complete.

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 schema has no descriptions, but the description explains all three parameters. unit_index gets a critical constraint (>0, not the output AU), while filename and sample_rate are clarified as output filename and export sample rate. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage, though the last two are somewhat terse.

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 states 'Export a single audio unit as a stem WAV with its effect chain applied,' which gives a specific verb, resource, and output format. It also explicitly distinguishes from export_stems, making the purpose clear and 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 provides explicit guidance: 'Unlike export_stems (which exports ALL stems in one pass), this exports just one AU — faster when you only need a specific stem.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool versus the alternative, satisfying the when and alternative requirements.

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