clear_clip_notes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the tool removes all MIDI notes and keeps the clip, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., on clip length, envelope data) or prerequisites (e.g., clip must be MIDI). The description is moderately transparent but lacks granular details.

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 two sentences: the first explains purpose and utility, the second lists parameters. Every sentence is meaningful and front-loaded, with no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 simplicity and the presence of an output schema (which need not be explained), the description covers the core action and parameters. It omits potential error conditions and prerequisites, but for a straightforward clear-notes operation, it is largely complete.

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 compensate. It provides basic descriptions for both parameters ('track index', 'clip index'), but does not specify indexing conventions (0-based or 1-based) or constraints. This adds some meaning beyond the schema, but not enough for a low-coverage scenario.

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 'Remove ALL MIDI notes from a clip while keeping the clip itself', specifying the verb 'remove' and the resource 'MIDI notes from a clip'. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'delete_clip' which removes the entire clip, and 'remove_notes_in_range' which removes only a subset of notes.

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 clear use case: 'so you can rewrite it from scratch without deleting/recreating the slot'. This implies when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives.

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