mcp_opendaw_move_effect

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explains that effects between from and to shift accordingly and mentions indices are 0-based. However, it does not describe return value, error handling for out-of-range indices, or whether the operation is undoable.

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 highly concise with five lines: purpose, chain order note, three parameter descriptions, and a final note on shifting. No redundant information, front-loaded with 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?

For a simple reorder operation with three parameters, the description covers core behavior and parameter meanings. However, it lacks details on output schema and edge case handling (e.g., out-of-bounds indices), which 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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description provides concise definitions for all three parameters: unit_index is 'Audio unit index', from_index and to_index are 'Current/Target effect position (0-based).' This adds meaningful context 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's purpose: 'Reorder an effect within an audio unit's effect chain.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the chain order explanation distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_effect or remove_effect.

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 implies usage through the phrase 'Use this to move effects to the desired position.' It gives context on why chain order matters but does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like duplicate_effect.

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