mcp_opendaw_move_audio_unit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the reindexing behavior, relative delta semantics, and the return value (new index or error). It does not mention permissions, reversibility, or edge cases, but for a simple move operation, this is adequate and goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence contributes meaningful information. The parameter explanations are tightly integrated and directly useful, with no fluff or redundancy.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, precise behavior, parameter semantics, and expected return. An output schema exists to document the return value, so the description need not detail that further. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke this tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining both parameters: unit_index is 'Current AU index' and delta is 'Relative move (-1 up, +1 down).' This adds semantic meaning beyond the raw schema properties and clarifies their roles.

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 a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('an audio unit up or down in the mixer order'), and further clarifies the scope by noting it reindexes within its type group (Instrument/Aux/Output). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like move_effect and move_track.

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 explaining that the move is relative and reindexes within type groups, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the appropriate scenario, but it stops short of explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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