mcp_opendaw_delete_warp_marker

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral details beyond that: which markers are protected (anchor markers) and the return value ('Returns remaining marker count'). This gives the agent important expectations about side effects and results.

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 well-organized: a one-line purpose, a crucial constraint sentence, a parameter list, and a return statement. Every sentence serves a purpose 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 description covers all essential aspects for invocation: purpose, parameter semantics, a key limitation, and return value. It doesn't explain what a warp marker is in detail, but that is likely domain knowledge. The destructive hint is already annotated, and the description complements it with the anchor restriction. It is nearly complete for safe use.

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 must explain the parameters. It does: 'unit_index: AU index. track_index: Track index within the AU. region_index: Audio region index. marker_index: Warp marker index (0-based, from list_warp_markers).' This adds clarity beyond the bare titles, including the 0-based index and provenance of marker_index.

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 verb and resource: 'Delete a warp marker from a time-stretched or pitch-stretched audio region.' It distinguishes from the generic delete_marker tool by specifying 'warp marker' and the context of time/pitch-stretched regions.

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?

Provides a key usage constraint: 'Cannot delete anchor markers (first and last) — they pin the audio mapping.' This tells the agent when not to use the tool. Also implies a workflow by noting the marker_index comes 'from list_warp_markers', suggesting listing first. However, no explicit alternative tools are named.

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