mcp_opendaw_export_stems

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it uses OfflineEngineRenderer, includes effects, and returns a list of exported files. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., file writes to disk, overwriting), prerequisites (e.g., engine running), or error conditions. This is neutral but not exhaustive.

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 concise and well-structured: it starts with the core purpose, adds technical detail (OfflineEngineRenderer), states the return type, and ends with a workflow. Every sentence contributes value without verbose 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?

For a tool with an output schema and moderate complexity, the description provides the essential workflow and return type. It does not explain file location, sample rate semantics, or potential pitfalls, but the output schema likely covers return values. This is slightly below complete but adequate for most use cases.

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%, so the description must compensate. The description only indirectly implies parameter use (filename_prefix, sample_rate) but does not explicitly explain their meaning or constraints. The parameter names are self-explanatory to some extent, but no additional semantics are provided, making this a weak spot.

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's purpose: 'Export each audio unit as a separate stem WAV file.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like export_mix or export_single_stem. The mention of per-AU export and effects included further clarifies the unique 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 a clear workflow (create_instrument_track(s) → load_audio → place_audio_region(s) → add_effect(s) → export_stems), which gives the user context on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use it, so it falls short of the top score.

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