set_clip_loop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the partial-update behavior ('only provided values are changed') and specifies units (beats) and zero-based indexing, which are useful. However, it omits potential constraints or interactions between loop and marker values, and says nothing about error handling or side effects.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a useful note about optional parameters, and a clean Args list. No unnecessary repetition or fluff; every sentence adds value.

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 7 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral detail (partial updates), units, and indexing. The presence of an output schema means return values need not be described. It lacks explicit constraints between loop start/end and markers, but is otherwise adequate for correct usage in most scenarios.

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 fully compensate. It does: every parameter (track_index, clip_index, looping, loop_start, loop_end, start_marker, end_marker) is explained with meaning beyond the schema's bare titles, including units and zero-based semantics. This fully qualifies the parameters for correct invocation.

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 states 'Set clip loop and marker properties' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool's function from other clip setters, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like set_clip_properties or set_clip_fades.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and summary imply its purpose, there is no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative tool references. The note about optional parameters is behavioral, not usage guidance.

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