place_sample_clip

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only names the operation and parameter meanings. It does not state whether placing a clip overwrites existing content, whether the audio file must exist, what happens if the sample track index is invalid, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a scannable Args list. Every line adds information, and there is no repetition of schema-level facts like defaults or requirements.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, important operational context is missing: it does not say that the target track must be a sample track, how to create one, whether the file is validated, or what happens when length_bars exceeds the audio file duration. The presence of an output schema helps with return values, but the precondition and failure-mode gaps remain significant.

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 Args list is essential. It covers all four parameters and adds useful meaning beyond the schema: file_path can be relative to LMMS samples or absolute, pos_bars is in bars with 0 meaning the beginning, and length_bars is the clip length in bars. It could be richer on track_index constraints, but it compensates well for the empty schema descriptions.

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?

States a specific action ('Place an audio file clip') and a clear resource ('sample track'), with positional context. It is distinguishable from siblings like add_sample_track because it explicitly targets sample tracks and audio file clips, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with closely related tools like assign_sample_file or place_bb_clip.

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?

No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as assign_sample_file, place_pattern, or place_bb_clip. It also omits prerequisites such as the sample track needing to already exist, so the description does not help an agent choose correctly among sibling tools.

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