mcp_opendaw_duplicate_audiounit

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It details exactly what is copied (instrument, effects, tracks, etc.) but does not mention side effects like whether the original remains unchanged or permission requirements.

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 well-structured with bullet points, front-loaded with purpose, and each sentence adds value. 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?

Since an output schema exists, return values are covered. The description comprehensively lists what is duplicated but could mention that the original audio unit remains unchanged.

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 description coverage is 0%. The description only says 'unit_index: Source audio unit index to duplicate.' This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, lacking explanation of range or how to obtain the index.

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 tool duplicates an audio unit with all its content, listing specific elements copied. It distinguishes from sibling duplication tools like clone_clip or clone_track.

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?

While the description implies duplication context, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like duplicate_effect or duplicate_notes. No when-not or contrast is provided.

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