arrange_from_scenes

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it details exactly what gets overwritten ('A track's range is overwritten where it has a clip'), what clear=True empties, that clips become independent copies, that the transport is stopped first, and that it returns undo_steps.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core mechanic comes first, then side effects, then the example. Every sentence adds information, though the parenthetical asides make it longer than strictly minimal for a tool this complex.

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 destructive, non-idempotent, 5-param tool with no output schema, the description covers ordering semantics, overwrite scope, looping vs one-shot behavior, locator creation, transport handling, the pre-arrange editing prerequisite, and the return value (undo_steps). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 carries full burden and does so well: it documents the sections element shape (scene index/name, bars or length with beats/'8 bars', optional name), clear, tracks, and locators semantics, plus a concrete example. The `start` format (e.g. '1.1.1') is only implied by the default, a minor gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Build the arrangement from scenes') and immediately defines the mechanism: sections play in order from `start`, each placing every track's clip. This distinguishes it clearly from get_arrangement and clear_arrangement siblings.

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?

Gives strong workflow context: write notes/automation in Session clips BEFORE arranging, or re-run with clear=True after editing, and 'Verify with get_arrangement' routes to the read-back sibling. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. vs. manual clip placement), so not a 5.

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