mcp_opendaw_duplicate_section

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and delivers: it explains overlap semantics, exclusive end beat, region types supported (note/audio/automation), content preservation, and return value. This goes well beyond a minimal description and fully discloses behavior.

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: purpose first, then mechanics, parameter list, and examples. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition. The examples are concise and illustrate both basic and advanced usage.

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 complexity (4 params, no annotations, output schema available), the description covers all essential aspects: what the operation does, which regions are affected, how parameters work, return value, and examples. It even clarifies the exclusive range semantics.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description provides clear meanings for all four parameters (from_beat, to_beat, target_beat, unit_indices) with additional context like 'beat 0 = start of project' and default behavior for unit_indices. Examples further clarify parameter usage.

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 duplicates all regions within a beat range to a new position, with specific mechanics described (scans all tracks, finds overlapping regions, copies with relative offset). It distinguishes from siblings like duplicate_region by explicitly working on sections across all tracks and audio units.

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?

Clear context is provided with real-world use cases ('copy verse 1 to bar 17') and examples. It doesn't explicitly contrast with single-region duplication tools (e.g., duplicate_region), but the scope ('all regions within a beat range') and 'Scans all tracks' make the intended usage obvious.

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