mcp_opendaw_duplicate_automation_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavior: copies event's position, value, and interpolation, can offset position and override value, and returns the new event's position and value. It does not mention error conditions or edge cases, but for a duplication operation, this is reasonably transparent.

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 well-structured: a clear summary followed by a compact parameter breakdown. Every sentence provides valuable information without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the operation's purpose, parameter semantics, and return value, making it quite complete for a duplication tool. It does not explicitly discuss prerequisites (e.g., existing event) or failure modes, but given the simplicity of the operation, this is a minor gap. The presence of an output schema is not seen, but the description mentions the return.

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 compensate. It explains all 6 parameters explicitly: coordinate indices, event_index, position_offset in PPQN, and value_override with valid range and semantics. This is thorough and adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema titles.

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 operation ('Duplicate an automation event within the same region') with a specific verb and resource. It details what is copied (position, value, interpolation) and distinguishes it from related tools like move, update, or delete operations on automation events.

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 context for when to use this tool: duplicating an automation event in the same region, with optional offsetting and value overriding. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the operation is self-explanatory given the sibling tool names and its own behavior description.

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