add_notes_to_clip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action ('Add') and lists parameters, but does not explain whether notes are appended or replace existing notes, whether the clip must already be a MIDI clip, what happens on invalid input, or any side effects. It does not even mention if the clip is modified in place.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a well-organized parameter list. It avoids unnecessary fluff. The only slight inefficiency is that the parameter list is fully included even though the schema also names the parameters, but the added explanations earn their place. Overall, it is appropriately sized.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool that modifies a clip with a potentially complex note structure. It lacks information about the operation semantics (append vs. replace), constraints on note values, behavior with non-MIDI clips, and any important edge cases. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should compensate, but it does not. This makes the tool hard to invoke correctly in unforeseen situations.

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 description provides meaningful expansions for all three parameters. For 'track_index' and 'clip_index', it clarifies they select the containing track and clip slot. For 'notes', it specifies the expected structure (list of note dictionaries with pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, and mute). This is valuable given that the schema is loose and has no parameter descriptions. Minor gaps remain (e.g., units for time, pitch format) but the description clearly adds substantial meaning beyond the schema.

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 action ('Add MIDI notes to a clip') and specifies the target resource (a clip). It goes beyond the name by clarifying it's about MIDI notes. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'add_notes_with_probability', so it misses the opportunity for differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'add_notes_with_probability' or 'remove_notes'. No prerequisites (e.g., clip must be MIDI), no context for typical use cases, and no exclusion cases. The description is entirely silent on usage scenarios.

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