mcp_opendaw_set_send_routing

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

With no annotations, the description defines the two routing modes and their meanings ('pre-fader, before volume/pan' vs 'post-fader'), which explains the main behavior. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, prerequisites (e.g., send must exist), or error conditions.

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 extremely concise: a single purpose sentence followed by three one-line parameter definitions. Every sentence adds necessary information 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 setter with three parameters, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter meanings, and value explanations. It could optionally mention whether indices are zero-based or that the send must already exist, but these are not critical gaps.

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 fully documents every parameter: unit_index (source audio unit index), send_index (send index), and routing with allowed values and their meaning. This entirely compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 'Set the routing mode for an aux send', specifying the exact action and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_send_level and set_send_pan by focusing on routing mode (pre/post).

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 usage through its clear purpose, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It is unambiguous enough for an agent to infer, but lacks explicit guidance.

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