mcp_opendaw_set_audio_region_time_base

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explains the semantic behavior of each time-base mode and states the return value ('Returns old and new time base'). However, it does not disclose potential side effects—such as how switching modes may affect the region's current timeline duration—or any prerequisites like valid indices, making it adequate but with meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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-organized: a lead sentence, a formatted bullet list for the core concept, a parameter summary, and a return-value note. Every sentence earns its place, and the layout is front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 core semantics of musical vs. seconds are thoroughly explained, and the output schema covers the return value, so the description needn't detail it. However, the description omits important contextual detail for a complete picture: what happens to an existing region's duration when you change its time base, and what error behavior occurs if indices are invalid. These gaps leave the description workable but incomplete for a mutation tool.

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%, so the description must compensate entirely. It enumerates all four parameters and gives brief definitions, with the time_base parameter receiving substantial semantic depth (the bullet list explaining musical vs seconds). However, the index parameters ('AU index', 'Track index within the AU', 'Audio region index') are nearly tautological with their names, lacking details like zero-based indexing or relationship constraints.

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+resource statement ('Set the time base of an audio region') and expands with a clear explanation of the two modes. This distinguishes it from sibling region tools like set_region_duration or set_audio_region_gain by naming the unique operation, and the conceptual elaboration adds value beyond the tool name.

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 provides clear context for when this tool applies: it controls how the region's duration is interpreted. It also explains the two mode options (musical follows tempo, seconds is fixed wall-clock time), which directly guides the agent's choice of the time_base value. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, but no direct sibling tool competes for this operation.

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