add_notes_to_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds notes but doesn't cover critical aspects: whether this is a mutation (implied by 'Add'), what happens if notes overlap existing ones, if it requires specific permissions, or what the response looks like. For a write operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding behavior.

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 efficiently structured: a clear purpose statement followed by a bulleted list of parameters with brief explanations. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose content. It's front-loaded with the core action and remains appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations or output schema, the description does a fair job: it covers the purpose and parameter meanings. However, as a mutation tool, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, error conditions) and return values, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe invocation.

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. It lists all three parameters and provides meaningful semantics: 'track_index' and 'clip_index' identify the target, and 'notes' is described as a list of dictionaries with specific fields (pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, mute). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't detail data types or constraints for note fields.

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 clearly states the action ('Add MIDI notes') and target resource ('to a clip'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_clip' or 'fire_clip' by focusing on note addition rather than clip creation or triggering. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all possible alternatives, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., requiring an existing clip), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'create_clip' for initial setup. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this operation is appropriate.

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