mcp_opendaw_copy_playfield_sample

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the sample is duplicated with a specific list of parameters and that it returns success or error. However, it lacks edge-case behavior such as whether an existing target_index is overwritten or replaced, which is important 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: an action sentence, a details paragraph enumerating copied parameters, parameter definitions, and the return type. Every sentence earns its place, and the important verb is front-loaded.

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 tool with three simple integer parameters and an output schema, the description covers the operation, parameter meanings, and return value. It is missing minor behavioral details (e.g., target slot overwrite behavior), but overall it is sufficiently complete 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?

The input schema provides only integer types with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description fully compensates by giving clear one-line explanations for each parameter: unit_index (AU index), sample_index (source slot), and target_index (destination slot). This is strong added value.

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+destination: 'Copy a Playfield (drum machine) sample to a new index slot.' It clearly states the operation and lists the exact parameters that get duplicated, which differentiates it from create_playfield_sample or other sample-related tools.

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 implies usage (copying/duplicating rather than creating) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of siblings like create_playfield_sample. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the usage decision partly to the agent's inference.

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