mcp_opendaw_delete_audio_region

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

The annotation already declares destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds no further behavioral context—it does not disclose whether the deletion is permanent, whether it shifts subsequent region indices, whether undo is possible, or what side effects may occur. It only reiterates the deletion action.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line action statement followed by a bulleted parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no fluff or extraneous detail. It is easy to scan and front-loads the core purpose.

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 simple, has an output schema, and parameters are documented. However, it lacks important contextual guidance, such as how to determine valid unit/track/region indices and the potential index-shifting effect of deletion. Given the availability of sibling list tools, this missing information could lead to incorrect 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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter: unit_index as 'Audio unit index', track_index as 'Audio track index within the AU (type=2)', and region_index as 'Region index to delete (0-based)'. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema names and helps an agent understand indexing conventions.

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: 'Delete an audio region from the timeline.' This is a specific verb+resource with scope ('audio region' and 'timeline'), distinguishing it from note region deletion. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like delete_region or delete_note_region, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention how to obtain valid indices (e.g., via list_audio_regions), nor does it advise against using it for other region types. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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