mcp_opendaw_remove_send

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It reveals the destructive nature (removing a send) but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., audio routing changes, irreversibility, or error conditions). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool, warranting a low score.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, followed by two brief parameter definitions. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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 operation, the description is largely sufficient: it explains the operation and both parameters, and an output schema exists so return values do not need elaboration. It could benefit from noting that the send index comes from list_sends, which it does, but does not mention prerequisites like the audio unit existing. Overall, it is complete enough for the tool's low complexity.

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 provides only parameter names and types with 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining both parameters clearly: 'unit_index: Source audio unit index' and 'send_index: Send index to remove (from list_sends)'. This adds actionable meaning beyond the schema, though it does not elaborate on constraints or formats.

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 ('Remove an aux send') and the target resource ('an audio unit'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_send, list_sends, and set_send_level, which have different verbs and purposes.

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 want to delete an existing aux send, and the parameter hint 'from list_sends' provides useful context about how to obtain the correct send_index. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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