mcp_opendaw_delete_automation_event

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description does not need to restate that deletion is destructive. It adds the scoping detail that only a single event is removed and notes that success or error is returned, but it does not disclose additional traits like irreversibility or effects on neighboring events.

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 compact and front-loaded with the action, followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence and line adds value, with no fluff or repetition.

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, and the description covers the core function, parameters, and return behavior. It could improve by mentioning how to discover the correct indices (e.g., using list_automation_events) and any side effects, but given the output schema exists and the operation is straightforward, it is sufficiently 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?

The schema has zero description coverage for parameters, and the description fully compensates by defining each index: unit_index (audio unit), track_index (track within the unit, specifically an automation track), and event_index (event within the track's value region). This adds meaningful hierarchical semantics beyond the bare integer names.

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 'Delete a single automation event (ValueEventBox) from an automation track', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create, update, move, and duplicate automation events by focusing on deletion of a single event.

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 usage (when you need to remove an automation event) and explains the meaning of each index parameter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention that one might need to list events first to obtain valid indices. This is adequate but not fully guiding.

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