mcp_opendaw_load_effect_preset

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention the internal process (reads, decodes via PresetDecoder, inserts) and the -1 default behavior, but it does not disclose whether the operation is destructive (e.g., replaces the entire effect chain), whether it can be undone, or what happens on invalid file paths. This is a significant gap for a mutating operation on the DAW.

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, at about four sentences, and front-loads the main purpose. It organizes information logically: purpose, internal behavior, and parameter definitions. Slight redundancy exists between the first and second sentences (both describe loading and applying), but overall every sentence adds useful detail.

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 two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: the file format, the target audio unit, and the special -1 case. It does not mention whether the operation overwrites existing effects or the exact effect chain insertion behavior, but the presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. It is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity, though a note on usage relative to sibling preset tools would elevate it.

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 ('Filepath', 'Unit Index') with no descriptions (0% schema coverage). The description compensates well by explicitly defining filepath as the path to the .opb preset bundle and unit_index as the target audio unit index, including the important -1 sentinel meaning. This gives clear semantic meaning beyond the schema, though it could note constraints like file existence or valid index ranges.

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 loads a .opb preset file and applies it to an audio unit, which is specific and action-oriented. It even notes internal mechanics (PresetDecoder) and the special -1 behavior, making it distinct from simple 'load' operations. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like import_preset or replace_from_preset, so it falls short of a 5.

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 implies the tool is used when you need to load a preset bundle onto an audio unit, providing clear context for its primary use. It does not mention when to use this over alternatives like import_preset, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., required audio unit existence). This is implied usage, not explicit guidance.

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