mcp_opendaw_create_pitch_stretched_region

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the core behavior (pitch stretch preserving timing via warp markers) and states the return value (position and duration in PPQN). However, it does not mention prerequisites beyond sample_id, potential side effects, or failure modes, leaving some ambiguity 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 well-structured and concise: a one-line purpose, a single use-case sentence, a parameter list with one-line definitions, and a return statement. No filler words, and all information is relevant and 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?

The description covers the essential information: what the tool does, when to use it, parameter semantics, and return format. The output schema exists, so return values are formally documented. Minor gaps include lack of error conditions and more explicit prerequisites (e.g., whether the track must exist), but overall it is sufficiently complete for effective tool invocation.

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 description provides a concise explanation for every parameter, including defaults for unit_index and track_index, and the purpose of bpm. Since the schema has 0% coverage, the description fully compensates by adding semantic meaning for all five parameters, making it easy for an agent to construct valid arguments.

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 begins with a clear, specific statement: 'Place a pitch-stretched audio region on a track.' It then clarifies the key distinction from time-stretching by explaining that pitch-stretch preserves timing while allowing pitch manipulation. This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_time_stretched_region and place_audio_region.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when you want to tune audio to project key without changing its duration.' This provides clear usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the contrast with time-stretch is implied, which is sufficient for differentiation.

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