mcp_opendaw_duplicate_note_region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the region's notes are copied to offset_beats after the original and that it returns a new region index. However, it does not discuss potential side effects (e.g., whether the original region is modified, if there are constraints on offset_beats, or if the operation is reversible). Given the lack of annotations, the disclosure is decent but could be more thorough.

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 efficient: 8 sentences, no fluff. It front-loads the purpose, then includes usage context, then lists parameters with examples. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how to use it with parameter details. It mentions the return value ('Returns new region index'). For a duplication tool, this is largely complete. However, missing details like whether it can duplicate across tracks or what happens if region_index is invalid would improve completeness.

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 (no parameter descriptions in the JSON schema). The description compensates by explaining each parameter: unit_index (-1 = search all AUs), track_index (note track index within AU), region_index (0-based), and offset_beats (in beats, with example 4.0 = next bar in 4/4). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('Duplicate a note region to a new position') and the resource ('note region'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'duplicate_region' and 'duplicate_note_event' by specifying it duplicates a note region (not audio region or individual note events). The verb+resource is specific and 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 a concrete use case example ('e.g. duplicate 1-bar loop to bar 2') and states it is 'Useful for repeating patterns'. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternative tools, the context of use is clear and sufficient for typical scenarios.

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