mcp_opendaw_set_region_duration

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

There are no annotations provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the core effect and gives a format example for duration_beats. It does not explain validation, side effects (e.g., whether the region is resized or content is stretched), constraints (e.g., positive values only), or how region/track indices are resolved. Additionally, the example uses '4.0' which conflicts with the schema's integer type for duration_beats, creating slight ambiguity.

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 extremely concise: a single action sentence plus a focused parameter note. Both sentences earn their place and there is no wasted verbosity. The front-loaded verb 'Set' immediately communicates the operation, and the example adds practical value without unnecessary length.

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?

Given that the tool has four parameters, no annotations, and a single-sentence description, it lacks critical context. The agent is not told how regions are identified (by index relative to track/unit), what constraints apply to duration, or what the operation returns. While an output schema exists, the input side is severely under-specified, making this incomplete for reliable use.

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 for all parameters. It only explains duration_beats (format and example) but omits any explanation of track_index, region_index, and unit_index. These are left to be inferred from their names, which is insufficient for error-free invocation, especially since unit_index is optional with a default but not described.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Set the duration of a region.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_region_position or set_region_mute. The addition of the duration_beats example reinforces the purpose.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or any caveats (e.g., whether it applies to audio/MIDI regions, or how it interacts with other region settings). The only context is the action itself, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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