mcp_opendaw_move_signature_event

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 disclose that subsequent event positions are automatically recalculated and that it returns success or error, which adds context beyond a bare 'move' operation. However, it omits details about permissions, reversibility, undo behavior, or error conditions, so it is only partially 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 written in a few short sentences covering purpose, side effect, parameters, and return value without excessive fluff. Each sentence adds value beyond the schema, and the structure flows logically from summary to behavior to parameters, though it could be slightly tightened.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description provides essential invocation details but lacks some contextual completeness. It doesn't mention what happens with invalid indices, whether the move is undoable, or how it relates to other signature management tools like set_time_signature or change_base_signature, leaving some gaps for a new 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?

Because the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explains event_index as the index from the add_signature_change list and target_ppqn as the new PPQN position, which is workable and clear. It doesn't define PPQN or give valid ranges, but it compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Move') and resource ('a time signature change event') plus destination ('new PPQN position'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like add/delete/list signature changes. It also references the add_signature_change list as the source for event_index, reinforcing the specific scope.

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 meaningful context for when to use the tool by explaining that the event_index comes from the add_signature_change list and noting that subsequent events are recalculated. This implies it is for moving existing events rather than adding or deleting, but it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, so it falls short of full explicitness.

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