mcp_opendaw_consolidate_note

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

With no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the original note is deleted, the expansion creates N independent notes with playCount=1 positioned by the curve, and the return value. This is transparent, but could mention potential side effects on region or track state.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, explanatory paragraph, parameter list, and return value. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, prerequisites, parameters, and return value. It could mention if the region length is affected, but overall it is adequately complete for this tool's 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?

Schema descriptions are missing (0% coverage), but the tool description adds meaningful parameter explanations (e.g., 'unit_index: AU index') for all four parameters, greatly aiding the agent in correctly identifying hierarchical indices.

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 tool consolidates a repeated note (playCount > 1) into individual separate notes. It explains the concept, parameters, and return value, distinguishing it from siblings as a specific note expansion operation.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: when a note has playCount > 1. It also notes the error condition for playCount=1, indicating when not to use it. However, it doesn't mention alternative tools for similar operations like merge or split notes.

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