mcp_opendaw_move_signature_event

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

The description discloses a key behavior: 'Automatically recalculates relative positions of subsequent events.' This adds value beyond the simple action of moving a single event, as it informs the agent of side effects. It also mentions the return type 'success or error'. However, it does not describe reversibility, error conditions, or performance implications.

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 extremely concise: two sentences for the purpose and effect, then a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. The key action is 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 that an output schema exists (implying return values are documented elsewhere), the description adequately covers the main action, parameter meanings, and a behavioral note. It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly, though it could mention prerequisites (e.g., the event must exist) or error handling.

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?

Since the input schema has no descriptions for the parameters (0% coverage), the description compensates by explicitly defining both parameters: 'event_index' is described as 'Index of the signature event (from add_signature_change list)' and 'target_ppqn' as 'New position in PPQN.' This adds crucial context about the source of the index and the unit of the position.

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: 'Move a time signature change event to a new PPQN position.' The verb 'Move' is specific, and it distinguishes this tool from related siblings like add_signature_change, delete_signature_change, and list_signature_changes by focusing on repositioning an existing event.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The description implies that this tool should be used when you need to reposition a signature event and want automatic recalculation of subsequent events, but it does not mention alternatives (e.g., delete and re-add) or conditions under which the tool is inappropriate.

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