mcp_opendaw_delete_signature_change

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

The destructiveHint annotation already indicates mutability. The description adds useful context by explaining that deletion matches the closest event to the given position and that it returns the updated signature event list. It does not disclose undo options but provides enough behavior beyond the annotation for an agent to understand the deletion semantics.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose. It uses bullet-like line breaks for parameter details. There is slight redundancy between the opening lines and the parameter descriptions, but overall it is efficient and well-organized.

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 simplicity, the presence of an output schema, and the destructiveHint annotation, the description adequately covers the essential usage. It explains the two deletion modes, the return value, and special last-event handling. It does not specify behaviors like no-match handling, but those are secondary given the output schema.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters: position_beats is the position to match with closest-event deletion, and index is the 0-based index in sorted order with -1 used for position matching. The special combination for deleting the last event is also clarified, leaving no ambiguity.

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 time signature change from the timeline' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like add_signature_change, list_signature_changes, and move_signature_event because the delete action is unambiguous and unique among the listed 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 provides clear guidance on how to invoke the tool: delete by position or index, and explains the special case of passing index=-1 and position_beats=-1 to delete the last event. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like move_signature_event, so it stops short of a 5.

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