mcp_opendaw_start_engine

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds a key behavioral insight: 'The engine serializes the current project state into the AudioWorklet processor, so all boxes must exist first.' This explains why order matters and warns about prerequisites, though it doesn't cover idempotency or failure modes.

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 two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the main action and key constraints. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second explains when and why. No fluff or repetition.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description adequately covers the essential context: sequencing, prerequisites, and the serialization behavior. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed. Minor gaps like error handling or repeated calls are not critical given the simplicity.

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 has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description correctly avoids adding parameter details, and the baseline for 0-param tools is 4.

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 'Start the audio engine (AudioWorklet)' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling engine tools like engine_panic, engine_sleep, and engine_wake by focusing on the initial startup action.

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?

Provides explicit sequencing: 'Call this AFTER loading audio, creating tracks, and placing regions — but BEFORE playback or effects.' This clearly tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it beyond the implied ordering.

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