mcp_opendaw_delete_note

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is disclosed. The description adds useful behavioral context: 0-based indexing, the special unit_index=-1 meaning 'search all AUs', and that the tool returns the remaining note count. No contradiction with annotations.

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: a one-sentence purpose followed by a parameter list, then a return-value line. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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 destructive operation, the description covers the core behavior, all parameter meanings, and the return value. Since an output schema exists, return structure doesn't need elaboration. It omits explicit error handling or invalid-index behavior, but the destructiveHint annotation and parameter details make it 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?

Schema provides only type and title with 0% description coverage. The description compensates by explaining all four parameters: note_index (0-based, as returned by list_notes), unit_index (-1 searches all AUs), track_index (within the AU), and region_index (0-based containing region). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

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 note from a region' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like delete_note_region, clear_region_notes, and delete_region by explicitly targeting one note rather than a region or a whole region's notes.

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 purpose implies when to use it (remove a single note), but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist (e.g., clear_region_notes to delete all notes, delete_region for whole-region deletion). The parameter explanations help clarify the targeting context, but usage boundaries are not articulated.

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