mcp_opendaw_clear_region_notes

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

Even though the annotation destructiveHint=true already signals mutating behavior, the description goes further by explaining precisely what is preserved (region position, duration, track placement) and what is returned (notes cleared, remaining region info). It also documents the special -1 behavior, adding transparency beyond the annotation.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a clarifying elaboration, differentiation from siblings, parameter explanations, return value note, and two examples. Every sentence adds value, and the front-loaded summary immediately conveys the core purpose.

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 destructive nature and three parameters, the description is complete: it covers behavior, scope, special values, return values, and even provides worked examples. The output schema isn't shown, but the return value is described in prose, and the sibling differentiation fills any remaining context gaps.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It does: unit_index, track_index, and region_index are all explained, with the crucial -1 = all note regions on the track semantics. Concrete examples make parameter usage crystal clear.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Clear all notes from a region while keeping the region on the timeline.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly comparing to delete_note_region and delete_note, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: as the 'erase and rewrite' operation when the producer wants to start fresh without deleting the region container. It also names alternatives and what they do differently, giving clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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