mcp_opendaw_duplicate_region

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: copy is placed right after the original, find_free_space scans for first gap on any track, and it returns position and index. It does not mention undoability or error handling, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 well-structured with a clear opening, placement behavior, parameter list, and return value statement. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence adds value and the format is readable.

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 tool has 4 required parameters, no annotations, and an output schema. The description explains the operation, parameter semantics, and return value. It lacks edge-case behavior (e.g., invalid indices, overlap prevention when find_free_space=False) but is sufficiently complete for a duplication operation.

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 explicitly explains all four parameters, including special values (unit_index=-1 means search all AUs), zero-based region_index, and exact behavior of find_free_space. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Duplicate any region (audio, note, or value)' with a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'using the DAW's built-in duplicateRegion API' adds specificity. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like duplicate_note_region by covering all region types.

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 explains the two placement modes (with and without find_free_space) and param semantics, giving clear context on execution. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives such as duplicate_note_region or duplicate_audiounit, nor does it provide any exclusions or when-not guidance.

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