mcp_opendaw_move_region_content

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

No annotations were provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses critical behavior: for audio regions with seconds timeBase, delta conversion via tempo map; for note regions, note positions shift by -delta. It also mentions return values (new position, duration, loopDuration) and error cases.

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 with a clear purpose sentence followed by details and bulleted parameters. It is slightly verbose in a couple of sentences, but overall efficient 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 tool has simple parameters and an output schema exists, the description covers key behaviors and returns. It omits prerequisites (e.g., region existence) and side effects, but is largely complete for effective selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description defines each parameter clearly: unit_index, track_index, region_index, and delta_beats with context-specific meaning. This adds significant semantic value beyond the schema's basic types.

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 uses specific verbs ('Shift the content start') and clarifies what the tool does: it moves content inside a region without moving the region itself. It distinguishes from siblings like move_region_to_track or set_region_position by focusing on content shifting.

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 use case ('useful for realigning content within a region after tempo changes') and explains behavior differences for audio vs note regions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives like move_notes.

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