set_clip_groove

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

With annotations only declaring readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description carries real weight: it discloses that applying a groove is effectively irreversible from the API (must be undone manually in Live's Groove box), and it supplies the valid amount range and the 0 = no-effect semantics. That is exactly the kind of un-undoable side effect an agent needs warned about before mutating a clip.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the amount semantics before the caveat and prerequisite. Dense but nothing is wasted; the parenthetical around the irreversibility caveat is the only slightly packed spot.

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 described, and the irreversibility warning is well covered. But for a 5-parameter mutation tool at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the addressing parameters and the arrangement-vs-session toggle undocumented, which an agent needs to call it 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 compensate, and it only partly does: 'amount' gets a range and a no-op value, and 'groove' is defined as a name lookup. track_index, clip_index, and especially the boolean 'arrangement' flag go entirely unexplained in both schema and description.

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 verb and resource ('Apply a Groove Pool groove to a clip') and immediately pins down the lookup key ('by name'). It also names the sibling it competes with (swing_clip), so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: if you want a reversible swing, prefer swing_clip, because Live's API cannot detach a groove afterwards. It also states the prerequisite for use (grooves must first be loaded into the pool). It does not point at the get_grooves sibling as the way to discover valid groove names, which is the one obvious gap.

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