clear_clip_automation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It merely restates the tool's name ('Clear automation') without explaining what clearing entails, such as removing all automation points, resetting to default, or any side effects on clip playback.

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 an initial statement of purpose followed by a parameter list. However, the parameter list adds little value beyond the parameter names, so the structure could be more informative.

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 severely incomplete given the tool's complexity and the absence of annotations or an output schema. It does not address what 'clear automation' means, when it applies, how it interacts with the clip's automation envelope, or what errors might occur. The sibling set includes closely related tools, but this description provides no comparative context.

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 parameter descriptions are nearly tautological: 'The index of the track' for track_index, 'The index of the clip slot' for clip_index. They do not clarify crucial details like whether indices are zero-based, how to specify parameter_name (display name vs internal name), or what values are valid. With 0% schema coverage, this is insufficient.

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 ('Clear automation') and the resource ('a clip parameter'). The verb 'clear' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_clip_automation and set_clip_automation, though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., clip existence, track type) or situations where clearing automation is appropriate.

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