mcp_opendaw_set_marker_position

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'moves' a marker (a mutation) but does not disclose side effects, return value, permissions, or error behavior (e.g., invalid index).

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 three lines: a sentence and two parameter explanations. No unnecessary words, information 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 the output schema exists (though not shown), the description covers the parameters but lacks error handling, prerequisites (e.g., marker must exist), or behavioral details. It is adequate for a simple setter but not comprehensive.

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%, so the description must add value. It explains marker_index as 'Index from list_markers (0-based)' and position_beats as 'New position in beats', providing context beyond the schema titles. Could be more precise (e.g., valid range).

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 verb 'Move' and the resource 'timeline marker to a new position'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_marker_label or set_marker_repeat by focusing solely on position.

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 hints that marker_index comes from list_markers (0-based), implying a prerequisite, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_marker or delete_marker, nor does it provide exclusions.

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