mcp_opendaw_delete_note

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

The annotation 'destructiveHint: true' already indicates mutation. The description adds that it deletes a single note and returns the remaining note count. It does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., note removed from region, impact on region structure) or error conditions. Adequate but not rich.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose followed by a bullet-like list of parameter explanations. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. No extraneous words.

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 complexity (4 parameters, destructive action) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter meanings, and return value (remaining note count). It lacks error handling details or behavioral edge cases, but overall is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 absent (0% coverage), but the tool description provides clear explanations for all four parameters: note_index (0-based, from list_notes), unit_index (-1 for all AUs), track_index (within AU), and region_index (0-based). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types and titles.

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 single note from a region,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_note_region' (which deletes an entire note region) by specifying it operates on a single note. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all other delete tools, so it's not a perfect 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'delete_note_region' or other delete tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, fallback tools, or context for usage. The description only explains parameters, not usage context.

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