mcp_opendaw_create_time_stretched_region

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals key behaviors: audio plays back at a different speed while syncing to tempo, warp markers are created, and it returns position/duration/playback rate. However, it does not mention prerequisites (beyond sample_id), potential side effects on existing regions, or error conditions, leaving some gaps for an agent to discover.

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: a one-sentence summary, a contrast paragraph, a clear parameter list, and a return statement. Despite covering 7 parameters, it remains tight and readable. Each section earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 7-parameter tool with no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and return values. It even mentions that sample_id comes from mcp_opendaw_load_audio, providing a prerequisite. The presence of an output schema is noted, but since the output schema itself is not shown, the description's explicit mention of return fields is valuable. Minor gaps remain in edge-case behavior, but overall it is quite complete.

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 must fully compensate. It does: every parameter is explained with types, defaults, and examples (e.g., playback_rate: '1.0 = original, 0.5 = half-speed, 2.0 = double'; transient_mode: '"once", "repeat", or "pingpong"'). This adds substantial semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare titles and types.

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 clear, specific action: 'Place a time-stretched audio region on a track.' It explicitly contrasts with the sibling place_audio_region (which uses TimeBase.Seconds), distinguishing its unique behavior of musically-timed regions with warp markers. This gives the agent a precise understanding of what the tool does and how it differs.

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 this tool: when a time-stretched region should be musically timed with warp markers and stay in sync with project tempo. It names the alternative place_audio_region and explains the difference ('unlike place_audio_region...'), providing clear selection guidance.

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