clear_arrangement

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description reinforces this with an explicit 'confirm before deleting the user's work' caveat and details the surgical trim behavior (clips cut at edges) that annotations cannot convey. It does not address reversibility/undo availability despite idempotentHint=false, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the destructive warning and the core action, then moves to mode semantics and an example. Dense but every sentence carries information; the mode enumeration is slightly verbose but justified by the ambiguity it resolves.

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, parameter-heavy tool with no output schema, the description covers action, modes, defaults, parameter formats, and a usage example. It omits return-value/response behavior and undo interaction, but those are minor given no output schema exists.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full load: it explains start/end formats (beats, 'bar.beat.sixteenth', or a locator name), all mode values and the default, and the tracks vs all_tracks relationship. It also provides a concrete example call, which the bare anyOf schema cannot.

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 (Delete) and resource (arrangement clips) with scope (by track and time range), which cleanly separates it from the single-clip sibling delete_clip. The mode breakdown further pins down exactly what gets removed in each case.

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?

Explicitly documents when each mode applies (trim vs overlapping vs inside) and what omitting start/end does, plus the tracks-vs-all_tracks choice. It does not name an alternative tool to prefer for a narrower delete, so it falls short of a full when-not/alternatives statement.

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