add_notes_to_clip

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It explains the note dict structure and that the clip must exist, but it does not explicitly state whether existing notes are preserved or if any other side effects occur. The word 'Add' implies appending, but this is not confirmed. Given the mutation nature of the tool, more explicit side-effect disclosure would be beneficial.

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 well-structured with a main sentence, note format explanation, usage guidance, and parameter list. However, the note dict fields are repeated in the 'Args' section ('each with pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, mute') after already being listed in the note format explanation. This minor redundancy costs a point.

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 the moderate complexity (3 parameters, nested note structure) and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers all parameters, note field semantics, and provides guidance on the alternative tool. No critical information is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 fully explains each parameter: track_index is zero-based index, clip_index is zero-based clip slot, and notes is a list of note dicts with pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, and mute. This provides semantic meaning far beyond the bare schema, making the tool usable without additional documentation.

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 tool's function: 'Add MIDI notes to an existing clip.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool add_notes_extended by noting when to prefer that alternative for more advanced note properties. This is specific and differentiates it from other note-related tools.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Prefer add_notes_extended when you need probability, velocity_deviation, or release_velocity per note.' This directly tells the agent when to use an alternative, effectively establishing the use case for this tool as simple note addition.

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