set_clip_timing

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the 'guarded' nature and the plan/apply dual mode, which implies confirmation tokens and safety mechanisms. However, it does not disclose the optimistic concurrency requirement (expectedStateVersion) or the exact return format, but it does add meaningful value 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that captures the core functionality and the guarded nature. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the dry-run/confirmation flow (only hints via 'guarded'), the need for expectedStateVersion, or what the tool returns (a plan or confirmation token). An agent would need to inspect the schema to understand the full workflow, which is a significant gap for a mutation 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 description coverage is 80%, so most parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by listing the domains (loop, signature, quantization, groove) that map to parameters, but it does not explain any parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 a clear verb ('Plan or apply') and a specific resource ('guarded clip loop, signature, quantization, and groove changes'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_clip_timing (which reads timing) and set_groove (which only sets groove), and the term 'guarded' signals the dry-run/apply pattern.

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 implies a two-phase workflow ('Plan or apply') and hints at guarding, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get_clip_timing or set_groove, nor does it mention the requirement for a dry run before applying. The context is implied but not explicit.

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