mcp_opendaw_move_section

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cut-and-paste behavior, that it scans all tracks across specified AUs, and that it returns move details. However, it does not discuss edge cases like target collisions or overlapping source/target ranges, which leaves some behavioral ambiguity.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence summary, followed by a logical breakdown: behavior, parameters, return, examples. No sentences are redundant; the examples earn their place by clarifying the half-open range and offset logic.

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 moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: operation scope, parameter meanings, return values, and explicit comparison to duplicate_section. It even explains the relative offset behavior and default AU handling, making it fully actionable for an agent.

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%, so the description must fully define parameters. It does, specifying from_beat, to_beat (exclusive), target_beat (relative to project start), and unit_indices (comma-separated, default all AUs). The examples further illustrate the beat-to-bar mapping, going well beyond 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 opens with 'Move all regions within a beat range to a new position' and explicitly frames it as a non-destructive cut-and-paste, contrasting with duplicate_section. This specifies a concrete verb+resource and differentiates it from sibling rearrangement tools.

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?

It explicitly names an alternative: 'Unlike duplicate_section, this removes the original.' It also explains the ideal use case ('move the bridge from bar 33 to bar 17') and highlights that one call replaces delete+create sequences, giving clear when-to-use guidance.

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