mcp_opendaw_create_time_stretched_region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It explains that audio plays at a different speed while syncing to project tempo and mentions warp markers. It lacks details on potential side effects or permissions, but for a creation tool, the core behavior is well-covered.

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 main action and a key differentiator, followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (7 params, no annotations), the description is thorough. It explains the concept, differentiates from a sibling, lists all params with defaults, and summarizes the return values. The presence of an output schema complements the brief return description, making it complete for an agent to use.

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% description coverage, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so comprehensively: sample_id links to load_audio, unit_index defaults, start_beat is positional, playback_rate with examples, transient_mode with valid values, and bpm for warp calculation. Each parameter's purpose is clear.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Place a time-stretched audio region on a track.' It explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool place_audio_region, highlighting the musical timing and warp markers, which effectively distinguishes it from similar tools.

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 by contrasting with place_audio_region, stating that this tool uses musical timing (beats) instead of seconds. This helps the agent decide when to use this tool over alternatives.

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