mcp_opendaw_clone_track

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly discloses creation behavior (new track in same or new audio unit), what is copied (notes, regions, structure), and key constraints (new_unit requires same instrument type). However, it does not explicitly state whether the source track remains unmodified or mention undo behavior, which would be valuable for a mutation-like operation.

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 with a summary, alternative comparison, practical use cases, and parameter list. Every section adds value; the use-case list is concise and illustrative without being verbose. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps parameter descriptions tight.

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 7-parameter cloning tool with no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, key behavioral details, and parameter semantics. The output schema exists, so no requirement to describe return values. The only minor omission is error-handling specifics, but overall it is comprehensive.

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, but the description compensates fully with detailed parameter explanations, including ranges and defaults for transpose (-24 to +24), velocity_scale (0.1-2.0), and time_offset_beats (-16 to +16), plus a clear explanation of new_unit's behavior. This goes well beyond the schema's bare titles and defaults.

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 'Clone a track — full duplication of notes, regions, and structure,' which is a specific verb+resource with clear scope. It further differentiates itself from copy_notes_to_track by stating it creates a new track from scratch, 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?

Explicitly contrasts with copy_notes_to_track: 'Unlike copy_notes_to_track (which copies notes between existing tracks), clone_track creates the destination track from scratch.' Also provides a list of concrete use cases ('Essential for: Doubling, Octave layering, Parallel harmony...') that tell the agent when to choose this tool.

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