mcp_opendaw_remove_audio_bus

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

With no annotations, the description must carry transparency. It discloses the destructive nature: removing the bus and its associated audio unit, and the index-0 restriction. But it does not mention side effects on sends routed to the bus, reversibility (undo), or any permission requirements. The description covers the core destructive action but lacks richer behavioral context.

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: first line states the purpose, followed by clear parameter guidance and a constraint. Every sentence contributes unique information with no filler. It is well-organized for quick scanning.

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 focused removal tool, the description covers the main action, parameter sources, and the critical primary-bus limitation. It does not discuss impact on sends/effects that reference the bus or clarify the return value, but an output schema is present, reducing that need. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly under most circumstances.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains bus_index must be > 0 and preferred from list_audio_buses, and fx_unit_index is an alternative from create_send. This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Bus Index' and 'Fx Unit Index'. However, the 'either/or' phrasing contradicts the schema marking both as required, creating ambiguity about how to supply parameters.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Remove an FX audio bus and its associated audio unit.' This clearly differentiates from sibling tools like create_audio_bus, list_audio_buses, and set_bus_enabled. The object is precisely an FX audio bus, not a generic bus or send.

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?

It explicitly states the two parameter sources: bus_index from list_audio_buses and fx_unit_index from create_send, and warns the primary output bus (index 0) cannot be removed. However, it does not compare with related tools like remove_send or delete_audio_unit to clarify when this tool is preferable. The 'either/or' guidance also conflicts with the schema's both-required constraint.

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