quantize_clip_notes

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the operation and parameter meanings, omitting key details: whether the modification is permanent, if it affects all notes, if undo is available, or if there are side effects. This is insufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's full impact.

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 short and front-loaded with the main intent. However, the parameter list is redundant with the input schema; a single sentence suffices. It could be streamlined by removing parameter enumeration, but it remains functional without excessive verbosity.

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 simple mutation tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description omits important context: return value (if any), undo behavior, granularity of quantization (e.g., whether it preserves swing or applies to all notes), and prerequisites (e.g., clip must contain notes). These gaps reduce completeness.

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 0%, so the description adds essential meaning. It explains the grid parameter with concrete examples (0.25 = 16th notes, etc.), and clarifies track_index and clip_index. This goes beyond the schema's type and default, providing actionable context for parameter values.

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 ('quantize notes') and the resource ('a clip'), specifying a grid. It is specific and differentiates from siblings like 'humanize_clip_timing' by focusing on quantization to a grid, though it could be more explicit about excluding other timing modifications.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'apply_groove' or 'humanize_clip_timing'. It lacks prerequisites, caveats, or conditions under which quantization is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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