add_clip_to_arrangement

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description explains the operation is a copy (non-destructive), specifies arrangement_time in beats, and mentions the BETA state and API requirement. It does not detail return values or error handling but is fairly transparent.

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 concise with four sentences, each adding value: purpose, beta context, API requirement, and recommended prerequisite. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 or output schema, the description covers purpose, one parameter, and a prerequisite. However, it lacks details on return value, error cases, and indexing conventions, leaving some gaps.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that arrangement_time is in beats, but track_index and clip_slot_index receive no additional context (e.g., indexing convention). This adds value for one parameter but not fully.

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 it copies a session clip onto the arrangement timeline at a specified time in beats, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like duplicate_clip and bounce_session_to_arrangement.

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 provides a prerequisite (use get_arrangement_info to confirm support) and notes the feature is in BETA. It implies usage for moving clips to arrangement but does not explicitly list when not to use it or compare to alternatives.

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