quantize_audio_clip

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing that quantization aligns warp markers, that Live may adjust surrounding anchors, and that it does not quantize MIDI note ends. It also notes the requirement of unchanged state and swing. This adds substantial behavioral context that the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) do not cover.

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 (three sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. It then provides essential behavioral and prerequisite details without fluff. Every sentence contributes unique information, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action, prerequisites, and behavioral quirks. It mentions 'reads back native anchors' hinting at return data. It does not fully describe the plan/apply workflow (e.g., that apply requires a planHash), but the schema covers that, so the description is adequate. Minor gap: could mention return structure explicitly, but overall sufficient.

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 high (88%), and parameter descriptions already explain most fields. The description does not add new meaning about parameters themselves; it mentions 'observed global swing' which is contextual, not a parameter. It reinforces the plan/apply distinction but doesn't elaborate on individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 a specific verb and resource: 'Plan or apply Live native quantization to one warped audio clip.' It further specifies the mechanism (aligns warp markers with grid, amount, global swing) and explicitly excludes MIDI note ends, distinguishing it from MIDI-oriented siblings. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.

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 usage context: it requires unchanged audio state and swing, and it describes the plan/apply duality. It does not name alternative tools (e.g., manual warp marker movement) or state when not to use it, but the prerequisite conditions provide practical guidance. Minor gap in explicit exclusions.

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