Clear a clip slot's notes, audio, or sequencer data on a track, with undo support.
Empty a session clip slot (notes, audio, sequencer). Undoable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slot | Yes | 0-based clip slot (scene row) on the track. | |
| track | Yes | Track id (UUID string from tracks.list, stable) or 0-based index (shifts when tracks are added or moved). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's real contribution is 'Undoable' (reversibility via edit_undo) and the enumeration of what content is wiped. It stops short of saying whether the slot becomes empty or the clip is removed entirely.
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?
Eight words, front-loaded with the action and target, with the reversibility caveat appended. Nothing wasted and nothing buried.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers target, effect and reversibility. Only the post-clear state of the slot is left ambiguous.
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%, with both 'track' (UUID vs shifting 0-based index) and 'slot' (0-based scene row) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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: 'Empty a session clip slot', and enumerates what gets removed (notes, audio, sequencer). The word 'session' implicitly separates it from arrangement_clear and clips_stop, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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 only implied by the noun phrase 'session clip slot'; there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites (e.g. clip must exist), and no routing away from clips_stop or arrangement_clear. The 'Undoable' note is the only contextual cue.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.