clear_arrangement_clips

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety-disclosure burden. It explicitly labels itself 'Destructive', which is a critical behavioral trait. It could add more detail about undo or automation side effects, but the core destructive nature is clearly stated.

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?

Two concise sentences plus a parameter list. The most important information (purpose and destructive warning) is front-loaded, and there is no wasted text.

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 destructive tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the action, the destructive nature, the use case, and the parameter. It might benefit from an explicit 'no undo' note, but that is not a major gap.

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?

The schema only defines track_index as an integer. The description adds the clarifying phrase 'Track whose arrangement clips should be cleared', which ties the parameter to the tool's function. This is helpful but minimal – it doesn't specify indexing or validation.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Delete'), a clear resource ('arrangement clips'), and a scope ('ALL' from a track). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_clip (single clip) or place_clip_in_arrangement.

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 phrase 'Destructive — for redoing arrangement' provides a clear use case. However, it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools for similar tasks, so it falls short of a top score.

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