clips_write_progression

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: it warns that existing clip notes are replaced, that the loop length is inherited from the progression rather than chosen, and that the operation is undoable. The 'Replaces the clip's notes' caveat is exactly the kind of consequence destructiveHint=false alone would not convey, and it is consistent with the annotations rather than contradicting them.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and destination, then the consequences (loop length, note replacement, undo). Nothing is padded or restated from the title.

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 three-parameter nested write with no output schema, the description covers the important semantics: what is written, what is overwritten, loop length source, and undo safety. It leaves out what is returned (e.g. the created/updated clip reference) and behavior when the target slot already holds a clip, which the reader must infer from 'Replaces the clip's notes.'

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 67% with deeply nested objects, and the description adds meaning the schema does not: the three mutually exclusive ways to supply a progression (inline chord text, a named library entry, or generated output) are surfaced as alternatives, and the chord-lane side effect explains why slot/track matter. It does not touch the perform sub-options, leaving some nested semantics 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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Render a chord progression ... into a session slot of a MIDI track and set the clip's chord lane.' That clearly separates it from note-level writers like clips_write_midi or clips_write_drums, and the parenthetical points at theory.progression as the source. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling tools it is an alternative to.

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: it points to theory.progression for building the progression, and 'The loop length is the progression's' hints at how it differs from clips_set_length. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus clips_write_midi, clips_write_drums, or clips_generate_melody.

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