mcp_opendaw_place_audio_region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'place' and a prerequisite constraint, but does not explain side effects, what the tool does to the track (e.g., create or overwrite), or what the output schema returns. This is insufficient for a mutative tool.

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 (~100 words) and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, followed by parameter details, then a critical note. No redundant or irrelevant information. Front-loaded with the key 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?

Given the complexity of the domain and the number of sibling tools, the description covers prerequisites and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., return value, confirmation, potential errors). An output schema exists but is not mentioned, leaving the agent unaware of what to expect.

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 compensate. It explains all four parameters in a list, adds context for sample_id (origin), and states defaults for unit_index and track_index. This adds meaningful information beyond the schema's bare titles.

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 ('Place'), the resource ('previously loaded audio sample'), and the target ('as a region on a track'). It explicitly links to the prerequisite tool (mcp_opendaw_load_audio) and distinguishes from other creation tools by specifying the need for a loaded sample.

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 explicit guidance on when to use: after loading an audio sample. It includes a critical note about the required audio unit type (instrument AU with Tape device) and directs to mcp_opendaw_create_instrument_track if absent, effectively telling when not to use and providing an alternative.

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