arrangement_place_clip

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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: the operation is undoable, applies to MIDI tracks, and repeats the clip when length_beats exceeds the clip length. It does not clarify overlap behavior or whether repeated calls create duplicate timeline clips, which matters for a non-idempotent mutation.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and every clause adds relevant information. The telegraphic phrasing is compact without being verbose.

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 four-parameter placement tool with complete schema coverage and annotations, the description supplies the key constraints: MIDI-only applicability, undoability, and repeat behavior for length_beats. It could be more complete by explicitly distinguishing itself from arrangement_copy_clip and by clarifying overlap or duplicate-call behavior.

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 100%, so the schema already carries most parameter meaning. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that length_beats longer than the source clip causes repetition, which is not stated in the length_beats schema 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?

The description states a specific action on a specific resource: copying a session clip onto its track's timeline at start_beat. It implicitly distinguishes the source as a session clip rather than an arrangement clip, which helps against siblings like arrangement_copy_clip, but it does not explicitly name or contrast those alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'Copy one session clip onto its track's timeline,' and 'MIDI tracks' gives an applicability constraint. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus arrangement_copy_clip, arrangement_edit_clip, or clips_launch, and no when-not conditions are stated.

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