clip_action

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: which actions create a new track and return it (audio_to_midi, drum_rack_from_audio, simpler_track_from_audio) and that crop keeps the loop/marker range. It still omits whether existing content is destroyed, and there are no rate-limit or auth notes.

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-loaded with the one-line purpose, then a dense but well-packed semicolon-separated action list. Nearly every clause carries information. Slightly cramped formatting, but nothing is wasted.

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 multi-action dispatcher with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers actions and their nested args but not the required top-level parameters (track, action semantics) nor any return-value expectations beyond 'these create a new track and return it.' Adequate but incomplete.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It does document the args objects for several actions (duplicate_region, quantize, add_warp_marker, remove_warp_marker) fairly well. But it says nothing about the top-level params track, slot, and arrangement_clip, leaving a meaningful gap for a 5-param tool.

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 framing sentence 'Run a clip function' is generic, but the action enumeration (crop, duplicate_loop, quantize, add_warp_marker, audio_to_midi, etc.) makes the tool's actual scope concrete: a dispatcher for clip-level edits. An agent can tell what it does. However, it never differentiates itself from siblings like transform_notes, edit_notes, or write_notes, which partly overlap with the quantize/MIDI actions.

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?

No explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The description never routes the agent toward clip_action versus transform_notes/edit_notes for note operations, nor states prerequisites (e.g., that slot or arrangement_clip must be set). Usage must be inferred entirely from the action names.

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