clip_add_notes

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

With no annotations, the description does a good job disclosing non-idempotency ('NOT idempotent: repeated calls append notes') and return behavior ('returns added count and verification diff if the count does not match'). It does not cover all possible behaviors but adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, no fluff. Every sentence adds unique value (action, usage context, behavior, return).

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 description covers non-idempotency and return format but lacks parameter explanations and error details. No output schema exists, so the return description helps, but parameter guidance is missing for a tool with 3 required params and nested objects.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions 'ADR-0003 note fields' without explaining parameters like track_index, clip_slot_index, or the notes structure. The agent must infer meaning from schema types alone, which is insufficient.

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 'Add MIDI notes to an existing session clip' and specifies the resource (MIDI notes to a session clip). It implies the clip exists by saying 'Use after creating or locating the target clip', which differentiates it from creating a clip (e.g., sibling create_midi_clip), though not explicitly.

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 mentions using the tool after creating or locating the target clip, providing a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or offer alternatives among siblings, leaving some ambiguity.

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