mcp_opendaw_duplicate_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the core behavior (copying all parameter values, supports audio and MIDI chains) and the return value. However, it omits side effects such as whether the new effect is inserted immediately after the original, whether index shifting occurs, or if the original is left untouched (though 'duplicate' implies this). This is minimal but adequate.

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 front-loaded with the main action in the first sentence, followed by a brief provenance note, parameter explanations, and return value. It is compact and well-ordered, though the issue #273 line is slightly tangential and could be omitted without loss of clarity.

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 tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary invocation details: each parameter is defined, the return type is mentioned, and the supported chain types are stated. It lacks minor behavioral details (e.g., index shifting), but overall it provides a complete picture for an agent to use it correctly.

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?

The input schema has zero parameter description coverage, but the description explicitly explains all three parameters: unit_index, effect_index, and chain_type, including the default value 'audio' and allowed values. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds context that is essential for correct invocation.

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 and resource: 'Duplicate a single effect within an AU's effect chain, copying all parameter values.' It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like duplicate_audiounit (whole unit) and clone_effect_chain (entire chain). The scope (single effect, both audio and MIDI chains) is unambiguous.

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 notes it addresses upstream issue #273 (Ctrl+D for audio effects) and states it works for both audio and MIDI effect chains, giving useful context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention any alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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