clips_transform

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds two behaviors not in the structured data: the operation applies to *every* note in the clip (whole-clip scope) and the change is undoable, which is essential for a bulk mutation on a non-destructive tool.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, followed by a single-word reversibility note. Nothing is padded or restated from the schema.

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 7-parameter, 2-required bulk mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is changed and that it is reversible. It omits what the call returns (e.g., count of notes edited) and whether passing no transform params is a no-op or an error, minor gaps given the full schema documentation.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description contributes one genuinely useful detail ('0.25 = 1/16 in 4/4') and clarifies the scale-then-offset ordering for velocity, but leaves quantize_strength's default and the interaction between optional params to the schema.

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 ('Edit every note of a MIDI clip at once') and enumerates the transformations (transpose, quantize, velocity scale/offset), which clearly separates it from write/get/clear siblings. It stops short of naming which sibling to use for related tasks such as reading notes or replacing them wholesale.

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 rather than stated: the tool operates on an existing clip's notes in bulk, and 'Undoable' hints at a reversible mutation. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, no mention of clips_get_notes to inspect first or clips_write_midi to replace notes instead.

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