mcp_opendaw_remove_effect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the removal but does not mention side effects like reindexing of remaining effects, error behavior for invalid indices, or any destructive/irreversible implications. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 exceptionally concise: one purpose line and two parameter definitions. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition. The structure front-loads the action and then lists parameters clearly.

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 simple two-parameter removal tool, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: no guidance on locating indices, no error handling details, and no mention of whether unit_index is 0-based. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the lack of usage and error context makes it minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by clearly defining both parameters: 'unit_index: Audio unit index.' and 'effect_index: Effect position to remove (0-based).' It adds the crucial 0-based detail for effect_index, though remaining ambiguity about unit_index's indexing prevents a perfect score.

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 action: 'Remove an audio effect from an audio unit's chain.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_effect, list_effects, remove_midi_effect, and set_effect_enabled.

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?

Usage is implied through the action and parameter definitions, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as obtaining valid indices via list_effects. No exclusions or context guidance are provided.

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