mcp_opendaw_set_marker_position

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool mutates a marker ('Move') but does not disclose what happens with an invalid index, whether the original position is replaced, if values are validated, or if the operation is reversible. This is a significant gap 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 a single front-loaded purpose sentence followed by two compact parameter lines. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition. Appropriately sized for a 2-parameter tool.

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 tool is simple with 2 required integer params and an output schema, so the return value need not be explained. The description covers the core purpose and both parameters, but misses edge-case behavior, prerequisites (marker must exist), and any relation to sibling marker tools. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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. It does: marker_index is explained as the 0-based index from list_markers, and position_beats is explained as the new position in beats. Both parameters gain meaningful context beyond the bare integer types, though no ranges or constraints are given.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource: "Move a timeline marker to a new position." This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_marker, delete_marker, list_markers, set_marker_label, and set_marker_repeat. The intent is unambiguous.

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 workflow via 'marker_index: Index from list_markers (0-based)', hinting that list_markers should be called first. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor provide any exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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