mcp_opendaw_move_track

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 mentions the underlying method (AudioUnitBoxAdapter.moveTrack) and that it reindexes the track, which gives some behavioral insight. However, it does not disclose side effects like how other tracks' indices shift or whether the change is permanent. The return value is specified as 'new index or error.' This is adequate but lacks depth.

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, using a short opening sentence followed by technical details. It avoids unnecessary words. Each sentence serves a purpose: purpose, implementation mention, parameter explanations, and return. Could be slightly more front-loaded, but overall efficient.

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 straightforward move operation, the description covers what, how, parameters, and return. The output schema likely documents the return format fully. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., existence of unit/track), but these may be inferred. Overall sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It does so: 'unit_index: AU index', 'track_index: Track index within AU', 'delta: Relative move (-1 up, +1 down).' This adds meaning beyond the bare integer types, specifying valid values for delta and the roles of the indices.

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 track up or down within an audio unit'). The verb 'move' and resource 'track' are explicit. The context 'within an audio unit' distinguishes it from sibling tools like mcp_opendaw_move_audio_unit (moves the unit itself) and mcp_opendaw_move_notes (moves notes).

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like mcp_opendaw_move_audio_unit or other move tools. Sibling tools exist, but the description does not indicate when this tool is appropriate or when to use other tools instead.

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