quantize_clip

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates data, but the description adds nothing about what is destroyed — original note start positions are overwritten and there is no mention of reversibility, undo, or whether MIDI-only clips are valid targets. For a destructive mutation, that is a meaningful omission.

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?

Front-loaded with the action in three short fragments and no filler. The telegraphic grid list is dense but readable; it could be slightly tighter by grouping the triplet variants.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, but for a destructive five-parameter MIDI mutation the definition says nothing about the arrangement/session distinction or what 'amount' actually controls. An agent could invoke it correctly on the surface yet misunderstand its effect.

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 carries the burden; it partially compensates by enumerating the valid grid values (which the schema leaves as an unconstrained string) and giving the amount range. The required track_index/clip_index and the ambiguous arrangement boolean are left entirely unexplained, so coverage is roughly two of five parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Quantize a clip'), which is clearly distinguishable from neighbors such as swing_clip or humanize_clip once the grid/amount semantics are read. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from those adjacent timing 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus swing_clip, humanize_clip, or transform_clip, and no preconditions are stated. The agent must infer that this is a rhythmic-straightening operation from the name alone.

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