mcp_opendaw_move_track

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that it uses AudioUnitBoxAdapter.moveTrack and 'reindexes the track,' and mentions the return value ('new index or error'). However, it does not describe potential side effects on other tracks, validation, permissions, or reversibility.

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 purpose, followed by implementation note, parameter explanations, and return value. Every sentence is informative with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the action, parameters, behavior, and return value. Since an output schema exists, return details are not required. Minor gaps include bounds or error conditions, but overall it is sufficiently complete for a simple move operation.

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 descriptions are absent (0% coverage), but the description explains each parameter: unit_index as 'AU index,' track_index as 'Track index within AU,' and delta with explicit semantics ('-1 up, +1 down'). This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema fields.

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 starts with 'Move a track up or down within an audio unit,' which uses a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like move_audio_unit by clarifying track_index is within an AU, and it explains the delta direction.

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 implies usage for reordering tracks inside an audio unit but gives no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, nor does it mention alternatives such as move_audio_unit or move_effect. It is adequate but lacks explicit exclusions.

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