mcp_opendaw_delete_clip

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

The annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, so the description's mention of 'Delete' is consistent. The description adds value by stating it 'Returns remaining clip count', which is behavioral info not present in annotations. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like whether deletion affects automation, undo stack, or if it shifts remaining clip indices.

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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second lists the parameters with their meanings. Every word contributes to understanding, with no fluff or redundancy. It is optimally sized for quick scanning.

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 (delete operation, 3 parameters), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter meanings, and return value. It notes that clip indices are 0-based, which is important. However, it could be more complete by explaining that deleting a clip may shift subsequent clip indices or that the tool operates within the context of a unit and track. An output schema is not provided, but the description compensates by stating the return type.

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 carries the full burden. It provides clear explanations for all three parameters: 'Audio unit index', 'Track index', and 'Clip index to delete (0-based)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema titles. A higher score would require additional details like valid ranges or relationships between 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 'Delete a clip from a track (session view)', providing a specific verb ('Delete'), a distinct resource ('clip'), and context ('session view'). This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools like delete_note, delete_region, and delete_audio_unit, which target different resources. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that the clip must exist), when it is appropriate to delete a clip, or what to do before calling this tool (e.g., listing clips to obtain indices). There is no 'when not to use' or comparison with other deletion tools.

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