mcp_opendaw_move_effect

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the reordering nature, 0-based indexing, and the fact that effects between from and to shift accordingly. It doesn't mention error handling or idempotency, but the core behavior is well-covered.

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 and front-loaded with the main purpose. The chain-order example earns its place, and the parameter list is integrated cleanly. No wasted 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?

Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers parameters and behavior well. Minor omissions like out-of-bounds handling or what happens when from_index equals to_index prevent a perfect score, but these are edge cases.

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 compensates fully by explaining each parameter: unit_index, from_index, and to_index, including their 0-based nature. This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare integer titles in the schema.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Reorder an effect within an audio unit's effect chain.' It also distinguishes from siblings like add_effect or remove_effect by focusing on reordering, and provides a concrete example of chain-order importance.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool ('Use this to move effects to the desired position') and explains why ordering matters. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for most agents to select it over siblings.

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