create_audio_clip

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: the plan/import two-phase flow, the binding of source file identity/size/modification time, and Live's audio-format validation. It does not detail failure behavior, but the added transparency is useful and consistent with the annotations.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and key preconditions, while the second adds the essential confirmation behavior and validation detail.

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?

For a two-phase tool with eight parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the core workflow, preconditions, and validation behavior clearly. The main gap is that it does not explicitly describe what the dry-run returns or what happens on failed validation, though the rich parameter schema partially compensates for this.

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 already documents all eight parameters with 100% coverage, including dryRun, planHash, confirmationToken, and expectedStateVersion. The description reinforces the plan/import workflow but does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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: plan or import a local audio file into a specific empty Session slot on an unfrozen audio track. This precise verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from MIDI creation tools and arrangement placement tools, such as create_midi_clip and place_session_clip_in_arrangement.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: local audio file, exact empty Session slot, unfrozen audio track, two-phase plan/import flow. It does not name explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the conditions are specific enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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