mcp_opendaw_place_audio_region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds the key behavioral constraint about the instrument AU and Tape device, which is valuable. However, it does not disclose failure modes, e.g., what happens if the AU lacks a Tape device or if the beat number is out of range. It also does not state whether the operation is destructive (e.g., overwrites existing regions) or if any side effects occur.

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 well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a short parameter list, and a NOTE for prerequisites. Each line earns its place. Minor redundancy exists (default 0 stated twice for different parameters) and the parameter list could be slightly more concise, but overall it is efficient.

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 purpose, parameters, and prerequisites, and references related tools (load_audio and create_instrument_track). It does not explain what a 'Tape device' is or why it is required, nor does it mention potential errors or edge cases. With no annotations and an output schema present but not shown, the description is functionally complete but not fully comprehensive.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates by explaining all four parameters in plain language. It specifies that sample_id is the ID returned by mcp_opendaw_load_audio, defines unit_index and track_index as audio unit and track indices with defaults, and describes start_beat as the beat position. This gives agents sufficient semantic meaning to invoke the tool correctly.

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 a clear verb–resource–object statement: 'Place a previously loaded audio sample as a region on a track.' It specifies the input source (sample_id from mcp_opendaw_load_audio) and distinguishes this from sibling tools like list_audio_regions or delete_audio_region by focusing on placement of a loaded sample.

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 explicitly states the prerequisite: 'The audio unit must be an instrument AU with a Tape device' and gives a direct next step: 'Use mcp_opendaw_create_instrument_track first if no instrument AU exists.' It also references mcp_opendaw_load_audio as the source of sample_id. It does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear.

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