mcp_opendaw_clone_effect_chain

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that parameter values are included, effects are appended to the existing chain, and the return is a list of cloned effects with new indices. It does not explicitly state that the source is unchanged, but "copy" implies non-destructive behavior; a bit more explicitness would merit a 5.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with purpose, followed by a use case, parameter explanations, and return value. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, when to use it, parameter semantics, and the return value. No critical missing information for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 compensate. It explains both parameters: "src_unit: Source audio unit index" and "dst_unit: Destination audio unit index (effects appended to existing chain)." This adds meaningful context beyond the bare integer types in 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?

The description clearly states a specific action: "Copy all effects from one audio unit to another, including parameter values." This distinguishes it from siblings like move_effect or duplicate_effect by focusing on the entire effect chain rather than a single effect.

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?

Provides a concrete use case: "Useful for applying the same vocal chain (EQ → compressor → reverb) to doubled vocal tracks." Also notes the append behavior for the destination unit. Does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the context is clear.

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