mcp_opendaw_export_stems_format

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. It explains the internal pipeline (export_stems then ffmpeg), which is useful, but omits important behavioral details such as potential file overwriting, the requirement for ffmpeg to be installed, and failure modes. This is partial transparency.

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 about 60 words and contains redundancy—the first sentence and the final sentence both describe the same conversion step. The structure is a bit disjointed, and the inconsistency about wav support could confuse. It earns a mid-range score for being clear but not polished.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the description misses important context such as when to use this tool versus the many export-like siblings (export_stems, export_mix, render_full_format), prerequisites like ffmpeg, and where output files are written. The tool's simplicity is balanced by the need for differentiation in a crowded toolset.

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 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter, including allowed values for format and the default for bitrate. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though it could specify sample_rate units or valid bitrate patterns. For these simple parameters, the descriptions are sufficient.

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 action (export stems and convert format) and lists the supported formats, distinguishing it from the plain export_stems sibling by mentioning conversion. However, the first sentence says 'MP3 or FLAC' while the schema lists 'wav' as default, creating minor ambiguity about the exact purpose.

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 discloses that this tool runs export_stems then converts via ffmpeg, implying it is a wrapper for format conversion. However, it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives like export_stems or export_mix, leaving usage context to be inferred rather than clearly defined.

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