mcp_opendaw_create_pitch_stretched_region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that pitch-stretch preserves timing, uses warp markers, and returns position/duration. However, it does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or what happens if parameters are invalid.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a concise explanation, then a parameter list, and ends with return info. Every sentence contributes value, and there is no 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?

Given the tool has 5 required parameters and no nested objects, the description fully explains each parameter and the return type. The presence of an output schema (mentioned) further supports completeness. The description is adequate for an agent to use correctly.

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 schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions), but the tool description explains all 5 parameters, including their roles and defaults (e.g., 'sample_id: The ID returned by mcp_opendaw_load_audio', 'bpm: Source BPM of the sample (for warp marker calculation)'). This adds essential meaning.

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 verb and resource ('Place a pitch-stretched audio region on a track') and distinguishes it from time-stretched alternatives by explaining that pitch-stretch preserves timing. This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'create_time_stretched_region'.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this when you want to tune audio to project key without changing its duration.' It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the usage context is clear.

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