mcp_opendaw_duplicate_notes

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 exact shift calculation, notes that it creates copies, and states the return value. This is solid, though it could mention side effects on existing notes or whether the operation is reversible.

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 one-line summary, then the algorithm, then parameter explanations, and finally the return note. No unnecessary words.

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 3-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the operation, parameter meanings, and return values. It could include more detail about track_index base (e.g., whether it is 0-based), but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 compensates by explaining each parameter: unit_index supports -1 for searching all AUs, and region_index is 0-based. This adds meaning beyond the bare integer types.

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 tool's action: 'Duplicate all notes within a region, shifting them after the last note.' It uses a specific verb (duplicate), identifies the resource (notes within a region), and explains the shift behavior. This differentiates it from siblings like duplicate_region and duplicate_note_event.

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 by stating it 'mirrors the DAW's native duplicate notes feature,' which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it falls 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.