mcp_opendaw_transfer_audiounit

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

With no annotations, the description fully explains the deep-copy behavior with all dependencies, describes parameters for move semantics and insert position, and mentions the return values. Lacks explicit details on whether source is modified when delete_source is false, but otherwise 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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then technical details, followed by parameter explanations. No wasted words; all information earns its place.

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 tool's complexity (deep-copy with dependencies, move semantics), the description covers what it does, how it works, parameter details, constraints, and return values. Has output schema so not required to explain returns, but it still lists them. Complete for an agent.

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 each parameter. It does so thoroughly: unit_index as source, delete_source for move semantics, and insert_index for mixer order with auto-place behavior. Adds meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states it transfers/copies an audio unit, specifies it deep-copies with all dependencies, and distinguishes itself from duplicate_audiounit by noting higher completeness and the limitation that output unit cannot be copied.

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?

Explicitly compares with duplicate_audiounit, stating this tool is more complete and uses box-graph serialization, guiding when to prefer this tool. Also notes the output unit cannot be copied, setting clear constraints.

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