set_clip_color

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

Annotations already declare a non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context by naming the Live palette index domain (0-69), which the annotations do not. It omits the important behavioral distinction that the optional 'arrangement' flag presumably toggles between session and arrangement clips.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the index range is placed where it is immediately useful. The terseness is efficient rather than padded, though the brevity comes at the cost of the gaps noted elsewhere.

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 not be explained. But for a 4-parameter mutation with no schema descriptions, the definition should clarify index base conventions and the arrangement-versus-session scope; it does neither.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only explains color_index's valid range. The three other parameters (track_index, clip_index, and especially the optional 'arrangement' boolean) receive no meaning, leaving the agent to guess whether it addresses a session or arrangement clip.

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 gives a specific verb ("Set") and resource ("a clip's colour"), so the operation is unambiguous on its face. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling set_track_color, leaving the agent to infer that this targets clips rather than tracks.

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 set_track_color, nor any mention of preconditions such as the clip needing to exist. The agent gets a statement of effect but no selection logic.

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