mcp_opendaw_move_notes

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It clearly discloses the mutation behavior: copies notes, auto-creates or appends to a destination region, deletes source notes by default, and clamps velocity to 0-1. It also reveals return fields like source_region_cleared, making the tool's effects transparent.

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: a concise first sentence captures the core action, a short paragraph provides usage context, and a bulleted Args list adds necessary parameter details. Every sentence contributes value, and the front-loaded summary allows quick understanding.

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 all aspects needed for an agent to use this 10-parameter tool: parameter semantics, default behaviors, the difference from copy_notes_to_track, and the return value. It also clarifies edge cases like dest_region=-1. The presence of an output schema further supports completeness.

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?

The Args section explains every one of the 10 parameters with additional meaning beyond the schema titles, including defaults and examples (e.g., velocity_scale: '0.8 = quieter, 1.2 = louder'). This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 operation: 'Move notes from a source region to another track — copy + delete.' This specific verb-resource pair distinguishes it from sibling tools like copy_notes_to_track, especially with the delete_source parameter explicitly linking to copy behavior.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: 'Useful for splitting material across tracks, reorganising arrangements, or moving a section to a different instrument.' It also references copy_notes_to_track when delete_source=False, giving an alternative. However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it, so it lacks a full when-not/exclusion statement.

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