mcp_opendaw_copy_playfield_sample

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the sample is duplicated with all listed parameters and returns success or error. However, it does not specify whether overwriting an existing target_index is allowed, whether the target slot must be empty, or any constraints like index bounds. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's exact behavior.

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, starting with the core purpose, then listing duplicated parameters, then parameter explanations. Every sentence provides value without redundancy. It is 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?

For a simple copy operation with 3 integer parameters, the description covers the essential behavior, parameter meanings, and return type. It lacks details on error cases (e.g., out-of-range indices) but is otherwise complete given the tool's complexity. The presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the need to describe return values in detail.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains each parameter: unit_index (AU containing Playfield), sample_index (source slot), target_index (destination slot). This adds meaning beyond mere integer types, making it clear what each value represents.

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 it copies a Playfield sample to a new index slot, duplicating all parameters. It uses a specific verb (copy) and resource (Playfield sample), distinguishing it from sibling tools like copy_notes_to_track or duplicate_notes.

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 when you need to duplicate a sample with all its parameters to a new slot, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any when-not guidance. Among many copy-related siblings, it relies on the name for differentiation.

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