create_clip

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 covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: overlapping MIDI ranges on the arrangement are refused, audio reports what it trimmed, and the call returns the new clip 'as get_clip'. It does not explain overwrite behavior for an occupied slot, which is the main remaining gap.

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 core purpose, then a compact per-parameter block, closing with a concrete example. Dense but every line carries format or constraint information; the only minor cost is that the parameter notes read as a terse list rather than prose.

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 nine-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return value ('as get_clip'), the units/formats for the ambiguous params, and the failure semantics for overlapping arrangement ranges. What remains thin is the interaction with an already-occupied slot and the audio-path prerequisites.

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 across 9 parameters, the description compensates thoroughly: slot is a 0-based scene index, at accepts beats, 'bar.beat.sixteenth' or a locator name, length is MIDI-only in beats or 'N bars' with a stated 4-beat default, color is an index 0..69 or '#RRGGBB', and pattern is drum steps. Only the trivial track and name params go unexplained.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Create a clip') and immediately enumerates the distinct creation modes: MIDI into a Session slot, MIDI at an arrangement time, or audio from file_path. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like duplicate_clip, write_notes, or create_scene without opening any schema.

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?

States when each mode applies (slot vs at vs file_path, MIDI vs audio tracks) and names the equivalent lower-level calls for in-line filling ('as write_notes', 'as write_drum_pattern'). It lacks an explicit when-not / prerequisite rule, e.g. what to do if the target slot is already occupied, so it falls short of a 5.

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