mcp_opendaw_swap_sections

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does a good job: it discloses that all note/audio content is exchanged, explains behavior with unequal lengths ('preserves each section's content and shifts everything accordingly'), and covers adjacent vs. gap cases. It does not explicitly state that this is a destructive/mutating operation or mention undo, but the swap semantics are clearly described. Missing some edge-case details like interaction with automation/markers, so a 4.

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 well-structured with a clear lead sentence, a usage paragraph, behavioral details, and an Args/Returns section. It is slightly redundant—repeating the swap concept in the first and second paragraphs—but each additional part adds value (length differences, gap handling, parameter meanings). Minor redundancy keeps it from a 5.

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 the tool's complexity (5 params, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description covers the core behavior, parameter constraints, edge cases, and return values. It does not mention potential side effects like whether markers/automation are affected, or any prerequisites beyond section order. These are notable gaps but not fatal, so a 4.

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 properties have no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description includes an Args block that explains each parameter in plain language: 'Start beat of first section,' 'must be > section1_end,' and the default behavior of unit_indices ('' = all units). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions and provides essential semantic meaning for correct invocation.

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: 'Swap two sections of the arrangement — exchange their positions on the timeline.' It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like move_section or reorder_sections by emphasizing the two-way exchange. The restatement 'moving section A to where section B was and vice versa' reinforces the action without ambiguity.

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 explicitly says this is 'useful for song structure experimentation' and gives concrete examples (chorus before verse, swap bridge with solo) and contrasts with 'manual cut/paste.' It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage. Lacks explicit exclusions/alternatives, so not a 5.

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