clear_clip_notes

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 only states the action without mentioning side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites (e.g., whether it works on session clips only, or if it is undoable). For a destructive mutation, more transparency is needed.

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 extremely concise and well-structured: a single sentence stating the purpose, followed by a clear Args list. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

This is a simple mutating operation with an output schema. The description covers the action and parameters sufficiently. However, it could be more complete by noting that it only affects session clip slots (given the context of clip index) or whether the change is undoable. Given the tool's simplicity and the output schema, the current description is nearly adequate.

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?

The schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage), so the description compensates by providing brief but useful explanations: 'Zero-based index of the track' and 'Zero-based index of the clip slot.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's bare property names and clarifies indexing convention.

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: 'Remove all MIDI notes from a clip.' It uses a specific verb ('remove'), resource ('clip'), and scope ('all MIDI notes'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_notes_from_clip or add_notes_to_clip.

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 usage context is implied by the name and description, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions or when-not to use it, but the clarity of the action makes the intended use obvious.

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