create_audio_clip

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the version requirement and preconditions (audio track, empty slot), which is helpful. However, it does not describe return values, error behavior, or side effects beyond creation, leaving some uncertainty for a mutation tool.

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 first sentence states the purpose, followed by a crucial version note, then a structured parameter list. Everything earns its place; no redundant text. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides purpose, prerequisites, and parameter details. It lacks return value/error handling information, but for a create operation with clear preconditions, it is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description manually explains each parameter: track_index, clip_index, path (including example .wav and constraints), and user_prompt (telemetry). This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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 'Create a new audio clip in an audio track's clip slot by importing a file.' This is a specific verb + resource + method, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'create_clip' by specifying audio track and clip slot.

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?

Provides clear usage context: requires Ableton Live 12.0.5+, target must be an audio track, and clip slot must be empty. These are explicit preconditions. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the audio vs MIDI distinction is implied through the tool name and description.

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