mcp_opendaw_duplicate_note_event

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It specifies exactly which properties are copied (position, duration, pitch, velocity, cent, chance, playCount), describes transposition/shift options, and notes the returned values. This provides substantive behavioral detail, though it does not mention side effects like whether the original is modified or how collisions are handled.

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-line summary, a list of copied properties, parameter semantics, and the return value. Every sentence carries useful information with no redundancy, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers all required aspects: operation, target selection, offset behavior, and return value. The presence of an output schema means return value details are not strictly necessary, but they are included anyway. No significant gaps remain.

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%, but the description thoroughly compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning: unit/track/region indexes as coordinates, note_index, and the offset params including their units (PPQN, semitones). It also clarifies defaults, which adds value beyond the bare schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Duplicate'), a clear resource ('a note event'), and a scoping constraint ('within the same region'), with optional position/pitch offset. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'duplicate_region' or 'duplicate_notes'.

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: it duplicates a single note event within the same region and explicitly lists the copied attributes and optional offsets. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, 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.