Preview DAW arrangements—sections, transforms, duplication, automation—before applying changes, with optional save. Validate the plan without committing edits.
Preview sections, duplication/transforms, automation and save
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sections | Yes | ||
| save_path | No | ||
| automation | No | ||
| transforms | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. But the description says the tool will 'save' and the schema exposes a save_path, which is at odds with a read-only hint and is never reconciled. It also never explains the preview contract (does anything persist? what does agent_apply do next?).
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but it is a fragment with ambiguous slash syntax ('duplication/transforms') rather than a sentence, so brevity comes at the cost of parseability.
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?
A four-parameter, zero-coverage arrangement tool with no output schema needs a real explanation of inputs and the preview/apply workflow. This definition supplies neither, so an agent has essentially nothing to call it correctly with.
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% across all four parameters, so the description must carry the load and it does not. It name-drops sections, transforms and automation without stating shapes or meaning (what a 'transform' or 'duplication' is), and save_path is not mentioned at all.
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 is a slash-delimited noun list ('sections, duplication/transforms, automation and save') hung off the verb 'Preview' rather than a statement of what the tool actually does. It gives no hint of how it differs from the many other preview siblings (agent_preview, agent_loop_preview, agent_midi_preview, agent_arrange_timeline), so an agent cannot route on it.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. In a sibling set with agent_preview, agent_apply, agent_loop_preview and agent_arrange_timeline, the definition never says when an arranging preview is the right call versus those.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.