set_audio_clip_state

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

Annotations already signal that the tool is not read-only and not destructive. The description adds that operations are 'guarded' and can be planned or applied, revealing a dry-run/confirm workflow, and it warns that warping should be changed separately from markers. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond 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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the following sentence packs the highest-value usage rules. Nothing extraneous is present.

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 15-parameter mutation tool with plan/apply semantics and no output schema, the description is terse. The schema fills many gaps, but the description relies heavily on schema fields like dryRun, planHash, and confirmationToken to convey the workflow, and gives no hint about return plans or failure modes. It is adequate for a moderately experienced agent but not complete for such a complex tool.

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 87%, so the baseline is met. The description adds genuinely useful parameter semantics: it clarifies when to use beats vs. seconds for markers and instructs that warping and marker changes should be separate. It does not explain pitchFine/pitchCoarse semantics, but those are relatively self-evident from names and ranges.

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 names the exact resource (audio clip) and the mutating actions (gain, pitch offsets, warp, marker changes), and adds the two-phase 'Plan or apply' behavior. It is specific enough to distinguish from read-only get_audio_clip_state and other set_* siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

It gives clear operational guidance: 'use beats for warped clips and seconds for unwarped clips' and 'change warping separately from markers.' However, it never says when to prefer this tool over siblings like set_clip_timing or get_audio_clip_state, nor gives exclusions, so the when-to-use guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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