mcp_opendaw_delete_section

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

The description goes far beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It explains the exact scanning behavior, the half-open interval [from_beat, to_beat), the optional unit_indices restriction, and what is returned ('number of regions deleted, per-track details, and remaining counts'). This gives the agent a thorough understanding of the tool's actions and side effects.

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 efficiently structured: a one-sentence summary, then behavior, use cases, parameters, return value, and two examples. Every sentence adds value, and the content is well-organized and front-loaded. Although it is longer than typical descriptions, the length is justified by the tool's complexity and the lack of parameter descriptions in the schema.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple tracks, range semantics, optional unit filtering), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the action, the scope, the parameters, and the return value. The presence of an output schema means the description need not detail return structure, but it does anyway. There are no significant gaps for an agent to misuse the tool.

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: from_beat (start), to_beat (exclusive end), and unit_indices (comma-separated AU indices, defaults to all AUs). The examples further clarify usage. This is exactly what a well-compensated parameter section looks like.

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 specific verb+resource+scope: 'Delete all regions within a beat range across all tracks.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_region by explicitly saying 'One call replaces N delete_region calls' and positions itself within the CRUD trilogy (duplicate/move/delete). This makes the tool's function unmistakable and differentiated.

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 concrete use cases ('clear bars 9-12') and explicitly contrasts with delete_region ('One call replaces N delete_region calls'). It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., for a single region), but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer the appropriate scenario. The missing explicit exclusion prevents a 5.

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