mcp_opendaw_set_audio_region_waveform_offset

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the offset shifts the visual start (non-destructive display) and that it returns old and new offsets. However, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, prerequisites, or error conditions, which is modest but acceptable for a simple setter.

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 action, followed by a short explanation, parameter list, and return value note. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant content.

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 4-parameter setter with an output schema, the description covers what the tool does, the parameters, and return behavior. It could be improved by adding how to find the indices (e.g., via list_audio_regions) or an example, but these are not essential for correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the description compensates by listing each parameter with a brief meaning: unit_index (AU index), track_index (Track index within the AU), region_index (Audio region index), and offset (in seconds). While terse, this adds meaning beyond the bare schema titles, especially the unit for offset. The term 'AU' is not expanded, but this is a minor gap.

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: 'Set the waveform display offset of an audio region.' It clearly explains the concept (shifts visual start) and purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling operations, though the unique action is clear enough without an explicit alternative.

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 explains the tool's purpose ('useful for aligning the waveform display with the actual audio content') which gives context for when to use it, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or suggest any alternative tools. There are no exclusions or fallback recommendations.

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