mcp_opendaw_move_region_content

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 does an excellent job explaining the audio vs. MIDI behavior, including the tempo map conversion and the sign convention for MIDI notes. It also mentions the return values. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether the operation is destructive or reversible via undo) or note any permission/associated DAW engine state requirements. This leaves some gaps for an AI agent to infer.

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 and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, followed by targeted detail for audio vs. MIDI, then a concise parameter list, and a brief return-value note. Every sentence adds valuable information; there is no fluff or repetition. It remains compact enough to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and schema descriptions, the description provides a complete picture: it defines the operation, distinguishes between audio and note regions, explains parameter meanings, and states the return values. It even accounts for tempo map conversion. While it does not discuss edge cases (e.g., negative delta or region boundary limits), it covers all necessary information for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly for typical use 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 coverage is 0% (no descriptions in the input schema). The description compensates fully by explicitly listing each parameter: 'unit_index: AU index', 'track_index: Track index within the AU', 'region_index: Region index', and 'delta_beats: Shift amount in beats (positive = content moves left, region shrinks from left)'. This adds semantic meaning, including the critical sign convention for delta_beats, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Shift the content start of a region without moving the region itself.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like set_region_position or move_notes, which alter the region position or notes independently. The distinction is concrete and immediately understandable.

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 states 'Useful for realigning content within a region after tempo changes,' providing clear usage context. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the phrase 'without moving the region itself' implicitly contrasts with region-moving operations. No exclusions are needed for a niche tool like this.

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