mcp_opendaw_duplicate_region

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

Given no annotations, the description effectively discloses the placement behavior (after original or on free space on any track) and that it returns the new region's position and index. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but the core behavior is well explained.

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 and well-structured: a clear purpose sentence, followed by high-level behavior explanation, then parameter list. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

Considering the tool's complexity and the presence of many sibling duplicate tools, the description is fairly complete for the tool itself. However, it lacks comparative guidance to help an agent select this tool over similar ones, slightly reducing contextual 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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description fully explains all four parameters: unit_index (with -1 meaning search all AUs), track_index, region_index (0-based), and find_free_space (with clear behavior for True/False). This adds essential 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 tool duplicates any region (audio, note, or value) using the duplicateRegion API. It specifies the action and resource type, and distinguishes from sibling duplicate tools by focusing on regions rather than other entities.

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 explains the two modes based on find_free_space parameter, providing guidance within the tool. However, it does not guide when to choose this tool over other duplicate tools (e.g., duplicate_note_region, duplicate_notes) from the sibling set, lacking explicit selection criteria.

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