mcp_opendaw_set_time_stretch_cents

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It discloses that the tool sets pitch shift with clamping, returns new playback rate and cents or error, and only works on specific regions. It does not explicitly mention that it modifies the region's playback rate (implied by return value) or discuss side effects, undo capability, or authorization needs, but is still fairly transparent.

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 short paragraphs and bullet-style lines for parameters. The first line clearly states the tool's purpose. Every sentence adds value: range, prerequisite, parameter explanations, return value. No redundancy or filler.

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 likely exists and the description mentions return values, it covers the essential behavior. It could mention that the region must exist or error scenarios, but for a simple setter, it is sufficiently complete.

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 each parameter. It does so for all four parameters: unit_index, track_index, region_index, and cents, including the range and meaning of cents. This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 tool sets the pitch shift in cents on a time-stretched audio region, specifying the action ('set'), the domain ('time-stretched audio region'), and the unit ('cents'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like set_note_cents (MIDI) or set_transpose (general) by focusing on time-stretched regions, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite: 'Only works on time-stretched regions (created with create_time_stretched_region).' This tells the agent when not to use it. It also provides the valid range and clamping behavior. However, it does not mention alternative tools for non-time-stretched regions, but the sibling list provides context.

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