mcp_opendaw_clone_effect_chain

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

No annotations provided, so description fully handles behavioral context. It discloses key traits: copies parameters, appends effects to destination's existing chain, returns list of cloned effects with new indices. This is comprehensive for a clone operation.

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?

Five short sentences, no fluff. Core action in first sentence, use case in second, parameter explanations in third and fourth, return format in fifth. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (clone operation), no output schema needed for completeness, but the description mentions the return format. Context signals (2 params, no nested objects, output schema exists) are adequately addressed. No missing elements.

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 no descriptions for parameters (0% coverage), but the description explains each parameter inline: 'src_unit: Source audio unit index.' and 'dst_unit: Destination audio unit index (effects appended to existing chain).' This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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: 'Copy all effects from one audio unit to another, including parameter values.' The verb 'copy' and resource 'effect chain' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'duplicate_effect' (single effect) and 'move_effect' by specifying it copies all effects.

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 a concrete use case: 'applying the same vocal chain (EQ → compressor → reverb) to doubled vocal tracks.' This helps the agent understand context but does not explicitly mention when not to use or what alternatives exist (e.g., for partial cloning use duplicate_effect individually).

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