place_clip_in_arrangement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: the source clip is copied (not moved), the new clip is independent, beat positions follow a defined reference (0=bar 1 beat 1, 16=bar 5 beat 1), and audio tracks error. It does not mention return values or edge cases like empty slots, but the major behavioral traits are transparent.

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?

The description is efficient and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, two short behavioral clauses, and a compact parameter list. Each sentence provides necessary information without redundancy, and the text is front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the operation, track-type limitation, parameter meanings, and copy semantics. It does not explain what happens on success (e.g., return value) or error types beyond audio tracks, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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 compensate, and it does by adding per-parameter explanations: track_index identifies the MIDI track, source_slot is on the same track, and position is a beat position with a clarified zero point. These definitions go beyond the bare schema names and types, though they could specify indexing base for source_slot or ranges.

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 clearly states the function with a specific action ('Drop... onto the Arrangement timeline') and resource ('Session-view MIDI clip'), and distinguishes it from siblings like create_clip or fire_clip by clarifying it copies from Session to Arrangement. The behavioral note about copying versus moving adds further specificity.

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 description explicitly states that only MIDI tracks are supported and audio tracks raise an error, providing a clear when-to-use constraint. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or broader when-not-to-use cases, but the track-type restriction and the copy-non-destructive nature imply the intended usage well enough.

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