mcp_opendaw_move_automation_event

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return value ('Returns success with old and new positions') but does not disclose potential errors, side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites beyond the implied index. For a mutating tool, this is insufficient transparency.

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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by parameter definitions and return behavior. Every sentence is informative, with no waste 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?

The description covers the essential purpose, parameters, and return value, making it moderately complete. However, with no annotations, it lacks guidance on error handling, invalid indices, or any behavioral constraints. The output schema exists, but the description could do more to explain what 'success' entails and any side effects.

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%, and the description fully compensates by explaining each parameter's meaning, including the source for event_index and the type of new_position_beats. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's bare property titles.

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 opens with 'Move an automation event to a new position on the timeline,' which clearly states the specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_automation_event or update_automation_event, which focus on other aspects of automation events.

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 implies usage by noting 'event_index: Event index (from list_automation_events),' indicating a prerequisite workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions, so usage guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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