mcp_opendaw_copy_region_fades

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the exact behavior (which fade properties are copied from the source Fading object to the destination Fading object) and the return value ('Returns the copied fade values'), making the mutation of the destination explicit. It does not cover error cases or permissions, but the core side effect is clear.

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 tightly structured and front-loaded: one purpose sentence, one technical detail sentence, two parameter-grouping lines, and one return statement. There is no filler or repetition; every sentence adds essential information.

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 six required parameters and no annotations, the description covers the operation, exact affected fields, parameter roles, and return value. It does not describe how to locate region coordinates or handle invalid selections, but the presence of an output schema and the focused scope make it reasonably complete for invoking the tool.

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 adds grouping: src_unit/src_track/src_region are source coordinates and dst_unit/dst_track/dst_region are destination coordinates, which is useful. However, it does not explain what a 'unit' represents or how the IDs relate, leaving some ambiguity for an agent that is unfamiliar with the DAW model.

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 and resource: 'Copy fade in/out settings from one audio region to another.' It then names the exact fields copied (fadeIn, fadeOut, fadeInSlope, fadeOutSlope), which distinguishes it from related tools like set_audio_region_fade that would modify fades rather than transfer them.

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?

Clear context is provided: the tool copies fades from a source region to a destination region, with source/destination coordinate triples described. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as set_audio_region_fade, but the copy-versus-set distinction is evident from the wording, and there are no exclusion criteria stated.

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