mcp_opendaw_create_time_stretched_clip

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains that the tool creates a time-stretched clip in session view and lists parameter semantics, but it does not mention side effects such as replacing an existing clip at clip_index, the need for a valid audio unit/track, or the outcome of the operation (though an output schema exists elsewhere). This leaves some ambiguity about what state changes will occur.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence purpose statement followed by a clean list of parameter explanations. There is no redundant or filler content. Every line adds clarificatory value, making it easy to scan and parse quickly.

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 all parameters and states the session view context, but it lacks important prerequisite and side-effect information: it doesn't warn that the sample must be already loaded via mcp_opendaw_load_audio (though implied by 'ID from'), that the slot must be empty or will be overwritten, or that the audio unit and track must exist. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations, these gaps prevent it from being fully self-contained.

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 explicitly defines each of the 7 parameters, including concrete examples for playback_rate (1.0, 0.5, 2.0) and enumerated values for transient_mode. The schema itself has no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates and even adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's basic type information.

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 the action: 'Create a time-stretched audio clip in session view.' This is a specific verb+resource+location combination that distinguishes it from related tools like create_pitch_stretched_clip or create_audio_clip. The session view qualifier helps differentiate it from create_time_stretched_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 provides clear context: it creates a clip in session view and references mcp_opendaw_load_audio for sample_id, indicating a prior dependency. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_time_stretched_region, and there are no exclusions stated. Still, the context is sufficient for a user to understand the intended use case.

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