create_arrangement_midi_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the clip is 'empty' and 'brand-new,' and that it targets a MIDI track. However, it does not mention side effects such as whether an existing clip at the same position is overwritten, whether the clip becomes selected, or any constraints on track_index/start_time. This is adequate for a simple creation tool but leaves room for 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: one sentence states the purpose, followed by a bullet-style parameter list. There is no redundant information, and every line adds value. The front-loaded purpose statement is immediately understandable.

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: create an empty MIDI clip. The description covers the purpose and all parameters, which is nearly complete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. However, it does not address edge cases like overlapping clips, invalid track indices, or what happens after creation (e.g., selection state). This is a minor gap for a creation tool.

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 explicitly explains all four parameters: track_index (target MIDI track), start_time (beat position), length (with default 4.0), and user_prompt (telemetry). This fully compensates for the input schema, which has only titles and no descriptions (0% coverage). The parameter list adds clear meaning and usage context.

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 action ('Create a brand-new empty MIDI clip') and specifies the location ('directly in the Arrangement timeline') and the distinction from Session clips ('without going through a Session clip slot first'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like create_clip and create_audio_clip.

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 when to use this tool by explicitly stating it bypasses Session clip slots, which indirectly distinguishes it from create_clip. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or state conditions like 'use this when you need a clip directly in arrangement.' This is clear context but lacks explicit exclusion.

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