mcp_opendaw_update_warp_marker

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool 'Returns updated marker values' but does not disclose side effects, prerequisites, error handling, or the impact of modification on other markers. It adequately describes the basic behavior but lacks depth for a mutation 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 and well-structured. It begins with the main purpose, provides a critical usage tip, and then lists parameters. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy.

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 exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'), the description does not need to explain the return format. It covers all input parameters and the -1 leave-unchanged pattern. However, it could mention that the marker must exist and what happens if indices are invalid.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant value by defining each parameter (unit_index, track_index, region_index, marker_index, position_beats, seconds) and explaining the special -1 default for unchanged values. Without this, an agent would have no semantic understanding from the schema alone.

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 'Update a warp marker's position and/or seconds value.' It specifies the verb 'Update', the resource 'warp marker', and the attributes (position and seconds). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_warp_marker and delete_warp_marker by implying a modification operation.

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 guidance on how to update selectively with 'Pass -1.0 for either parameter to leave it unchanged.' It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer it is for modifying existing warp markers.

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