mcp_opendaw_update_warp_marker

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 discloses the -1 leave-unchanged behavior and the return of updated marker values. However, it does not describe error conditions, side effects, what happens if both parameters are -1, or any constraints on valid marker indices.

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 well-structured, beginning with the core action, followed by the sentinel rule, then a clear parameter list, and finally the return value note. Every sentence serves a purpose, and there is no redundant or filler 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 tool with no annotations, no output schema details, and zero schema description coverage, the description covers all parameters, the -1 sentinel behavior, and the return type. It lacks error handling details and a reference to list_warp_markers for obtaining valid indices, but it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward update 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by defining all six parameters: unit_index, track_index, region_index, marker_index, position_beats, and seconds. It explains the meaning of each index and the -1 default semantics for the optional position/seconds parameters, going well beyond 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 clearly states the tool's action with a specific verb and resource: 'Update a warp marker's position and/or seconds value.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as create/delete/list warp markers, and the parameter list reinforces the exact scope of the operation.

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 uses language like 'Update a warp marker' to imply that it is for modifying existing markers, but it does not explicitly contrast this with create/delete/list alternatives or state when not to use it. The -1 sentinel guidance is helpful for usage mechanics, but no direct usage context versus siblings is provided.

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