mcp_opendaw_create_warp_marker

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

The description discloses the core behavior (adds a marker, anchors first/last) and the return value (new marker count and added marker's position/seconds). However, with no annotations, it does not address potential side effects, ordering constraints, or prerequisites such as the region being stretched.

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 with an opening statement, a short conceptual paragraph, a parameter list, and a return-value note. Every sentence contributes meaning, and the length is appropriate.

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 tool is moderately complex with five parameters and no annotations, and the description covers the concept, parameters, and return value. It lacks details on preconditions, error cases, and how it relates to other marker tools, but the provided information is sufficient for basic usage.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description provides brief definitions for all five parameters, clarifying units (beats, seconds) and hierarchy (AU, track, region). While helpful, it does not explain how to obtain these indices or any valid range constraints.

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 action ('Add a warp marker') and specifies the resource type and context (time-stretched or pitch-stretched audio region). It explains the concept of warp markers, which helps distinguish from similar marker tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'add_marker' or other sibling tools.

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 implies the tool is for stretched regions ('to a time-stretched or pitch-stretched audio region') and explains the marker's role, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives like add_marker. This leaves the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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