create_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 only states the action and parameters, but does not mention what happens if the clip slot already contains a clip, whether it overwrites, errors conditions, or any side effects. For a creation operation, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately concise and well-structured: a single sentence stating the purpose, followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easy to scan. It achieves maximum efficiency.

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?

The tool has a simple parameter set and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, it lacks contextual details about preconditions (e.g., existence of the track, whether the slot must be empty) and edge-case behavior, making it incomplete for a mutation operation.

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 property descriptions (0% coverage), but the description fully compensates by documenting all three parameters with meaningful details: zero-based indexing for track_index and clip_index, and the default 4.0 beats for length with an explainer 'one bar at 4/4'. This adds clear value beyond 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?

The description 'Create a new MIDI clip in a track's clip slot' clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_arrangement_midi_clip by implying session clip slot usage, and the parameter list reinforces the scope.

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 context is implied: the tool is for creating a MIDI clip in a track's clip slot. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., create_arrangement_midi_clip) or any exclusions, so it lacks direct comparison with similar tools.

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