mcp_opendaw_move_notes

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 transparently describes the copy+delete behavior, parameter effects (e.g., velocity scale clamped 0-1, time_offset, transpose), auto-creation/appending of destination regions, and the return JSON structure. Missing information includes what happens if the source region is cleared or if destination track doesn't exist, but overall it is quite 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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a contextual paragraph, and a clean Args block. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy. The format is front-loaded with the core concept, then detailed parameter documentation.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, 5 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the operation well. It explains the return shape and parameter interactions. It could briefly mention prerequisites (e.g., source region must exist) but is largely complete for an AI agent.

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%, but the description's Args block explains every parameter in detail, including defaults, ranges (velocity_scale clamped 0-1), and behavior (delete_source: 'If True (default), delete notes from source after copy. If False, behaves like copy_notes_to_track'). This adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 'Move notes from a source region to another track — copy + delete' and explains the operation as copying notes then optionally deleting originals. It distinguishes from sibling tools like copy_notes_to_track by explicitly mentioning the delete_source flag, making the purpose 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 specific use cases: 'splitting material across tracks, reorganising arrangements, or moving a section to a different instrument.' It contrasts with copy_notes_to_track when delete_source=False. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, such as if one wants to keep the source intact without copying. Still, the guidance is clear enough for most scenarios.

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