mcp_opendaw_set_region_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 action and parameter details but does not mention reversibility, side effects, permissions, or edge-case behavior. For a mutating tool, this is a notable gap.

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-sentence purpose followed by bullet-like parameter definitions. Every line adds value and the structure is immediately scannable.

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?

All required parameters are fully explained, including practical examples. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Minor gaps like error conditions or range validation are absent but not critical for this operation.

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 description provides thorough explanations for all five parameters, including units (beats), concrete examples (4.0 = start of bar 2), valid values (note/audio), and special sentinel behavior (unit_index -1 = search all AUs). This far exceeds the bare schema titles.

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 'Move a region to a new position on the timeline,' which is a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_region_duration or move_region_to_track.

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 clearly conveys when to use this tool: to reposition a region on the timeline. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous for this operation.

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