live_set_clip_notes

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 critical behavior that existing notes are removed before replacement, which is good. However, it omits other traits like whether the operation is destructive, authorization needs, or side effects (e.g., clip state changes).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action. No wasted words. The note format is given efficiently.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown) and 4 parameters, the description is minimal. It covers the basic operation and the notes format, but lacks context about the 'confirm' parameter's role (seemingly a safety toggle), and how indices are used. Adequate for a simple replace action but could be more thorough.

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?

Only the 'notes' parameter is explained with its structure. The schema has 0% description coverage for the other three parameters ('confirm', 'scene_index', 'track_index'), and the description does not compensate by explaining their purpose or constraints.

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 ('Replace') and resource ('notes in a MIDI clip'), and briefly describes the note format. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'live_arrangement_set_clip_notes', though the context implies it's for session clips.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'live_arrangement_set_clip_notes' or similar MIDI editing tools. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., clip existence) or conditions for successful use.

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