mcp_opendaw_duplicate_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It explains the shift calculation (max(position+duration) - min(position)) and what is returned (count and shift). However, it does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or authentication needs. Moderately transparent but not exhaustive.

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 concise, with three short paragraphs: first defines the action, second explains the shift logic and DAW mirroring, third lists parameters. No redundant sentences. Well-structured and front-loaded.

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 presence of an output schema (context signals indicate has output schema: true), the description's note on return values ('count of duplicated notes and shift in beats') is sufficient. For a three-parameter mutation tool, it covers the core behavior and expected output, though it could mention prerequisites like region existence or limits.

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 compensates by explaining each parameter: unit_index (including -1 special value), track_index, and region_index. This adds meaning beyond the schema titles. However, the descriptions are brief and do not specify constraints or valid ranges.

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 all notes within a region') and the resource ('notes within a region'), with the specific behavior of shifting them after the last note. It distinguishes itself from sibling duplicate tools by specifying it operates on notes in a region.

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 mentions it mirrors the DAW's 'duplicate notes' feature and lists parameters, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mcp_opendaw_copy_notes_to_track or mcp_opendaw_duplicate_note_region. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.

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