mcp_opendaw_create_pitch_stretched_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It adds some context (pitch alignment, AudioPitchStretchBox mode) but omits important side effects such as whether creating the clip overwrites an existing clip in the slot, prerequisites like engine running, or what the return value signifies.

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 compact and well-organized: an action sentence, two behavioral/technical context sentences, then a bullet-like parameter list. Every line is useful and there is no fluff.

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?

Parameter explanations are helpful, but the description lacks broader workflow context: it doesn't mention that audio must be loaded first, whether indices are zero-based, what happens if a clip already occupies the slot, or how unit/track/clip indices interrelate. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but behavioral completeness is still limited.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter's role. sample_id is tied to mcp_opendaw_load_audio, clip_index is defined as a slot index, and bpm is described as source BPM. Some ambiguity remains around unit_index and track_index relationship, but overall adds substantial meaning beyond titles.

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 'Create a pitch-stretched audio clip in session view' with a specific verb, resource, and location. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_time_stretched_clip by emphasizing pitch alignment with project tempo and noting the use of AudioPitchStretchBox.

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?

Usage is only implied through the description of pitch-stretched behavior (maintaining pitch alignment with tempo). No explicit alternatives or 'when not to use' guidance is given, even though related tools like create_time_stretched_clip exist.

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