replace_all_notes

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

With no annotations, the description discloses important behavior: atomicity, the remove-then-add sequence, and the note dictionary format. It does not mention error handling, undo implications, or side effects on clip length, but the core operational behavior is transparent.

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 summary paragraph and an Args list. It repeats the note fields in both places, which is slightly redundant, but overall it is scannable and efficient.

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 description covers the operation, all parameters, and the nested note dict. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are unnecessary. The only notable gap is the ambiguous requirement of the 'velocity' field, but otherwise it is sufficient for an AI to invoke the tool 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden. It explains track_index and clip_index as zero-based, and details the notes parameter structure. However, there is a minor inconsistency: the prose lists velocity as optional, while the Args section includes velocity without that qualifier, potentially confusing an agent.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Atomically replace all MIDI notes in a clip.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like add_notes_to_clip, remove_notes_from_clip, or clear_clip_notes by emphasizing full replacement.

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 implies the use case by stating it replaces all notes in one atomic operation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough to select this tool over related note-manipulation tools.

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