mcp_opendaw_delete_warp_marker

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description correctly states deletion. It adds value by explaining the restriction on anchor markers and their role in pinning audio mapping, as well as the return value (remaining marker count). No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact (7 lines) yet complete: a clear action statement, a restriction note, parameter definitions in a list format, and the return value. No redundant information; each sentence serves a purpose.

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 4 required parameters, destructive annotation, and lack of output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, constraints, parameter meanings, and return value. It even references the sibling tool list_warp_markers for obtaining the marker index, ensuring the agent has sufficient context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing concise explanations for all 4 parameters: unit_index (AU index), track_index (within AU), region_index, and marker_index (0-based, from list_warp_markers). This adds essential context beyond the schema's bare types.

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 warp marker' from a time-stretched or pitch-stretched audio region, distinguishing it from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_audio_region, delete_marker) and related warp marker tools (create, list, update).

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 explicitly notes that anchor markers (first and last) cannot be deleted, providing a clear when-not-to-use condition. However, no alternatives are mentioned, missing a chance to guide users to other tools for those cases.

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