bounce_midi_clip_to_audio

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses behaviors: real-time resampling, audible playback, track creation or reuse, post-FX routing, same scene row recording, auto-stop after clip length + tail, immediate return, and the need to wait. It also warns against session changes during recording. No contradictions.

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 about 10 sentences, well-structured with a summary first, then details, then parameters. It is clear and front-loaded. A slight reduction in redundancy could improve conciseness, but it remains efficient 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 the tool's complexity, the description is comprehensive. It covers the process, timing, warnings, and parameter details. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained. The description fully equips an agent to use the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It explains every parameter: track_index (source MIDI track), clip_index (source clip slot, recording lands in same slot row), extra_tail_beats (extra beats for reverb/delay tails, default 4), dest_track_index (existing audio track or -1 to create new '[BOUNCE]' track). The description provides context beyond the 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 the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('bounce', 'record') and resource ('MIDI clip's audible output to an audio clip'). It distinguishes itself by mentioning 'Live's Freeze/Flatten is not automatable', which clarifies why this tool exists. The purpose is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

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 explains when to use the tool (to convert MIDI to audio) and provides important usage context: 'Returns immediately — wait the reported duration_seconds, then verify with get_track_info / get_arrangement_clips.' It also warns 'don't change the session while recording.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or list alternatives, but given the specialized nature, this is sufficient.

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