mcp_opendaw_set_region_duration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not mention effects on existing notes (truncation, stretching, etc.), constraints (min/max), or whether the operation is reversible. The schema type mismatch (integer vs float example) adds confusion.

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 very short, which is beneficial for readability, but it omits critical information about parameters and behavior. It is concise but at the expense of completeness.

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 simplicity of the tool (set duration) and the presence of an output schema, the agent might infer basic returns, but the description lacks details on region content handling, constraints, and error conditions. It is insufficient for safe and correct invocation without additional knowledge.

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 explain all parameters. It only explains duration_beats, and with an inconsistency (integer vs float example). The other three parameters (unit_index, track_index, region_index) are not explained at all, leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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 explicitly states the action (Set) and the target (duration of a region). The example clarifies the unit (beats). This distinguishes it from other set_region_* tools which target different properties.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites mentioned, and no context about selecting the correct region or track. The description is purely declarative.

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