set_arrangement_clip_notes

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 side effects: editing in place, preserving clip properties, and retaining probability and velocity_deviation on notes. It clearly explains the `replace` parameter's behavior (clears vs layers), which directly addresses mutation semantics and potential data loss.

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 well-structured, starting with a clear purpose, then a comparative rationale, and ending with a parameter list. It is slightly longer than minimal but every sentence contributes value, and the front-loaded purpose ensures quick comprehension. The param section is necessary given the schema lacks descriptions.

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 mutation tool with four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage guidance, full parameter semantics, and important behavioral details like preservation and replacement. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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 Parameters section adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema titles, describing each parameter in detail. It explains that `notes` are dicts with fields like pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, mute, optional probability and velocity_deviation, and that start_time is relative to the clip. It also clarifies the `replace` flag's effect, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 clear verb and resource: "Write notes into an existing Arrangement clip, editing it in place." It explicitly distinguishes this tool from the sibling `create_arrangement_midi_clip` by saying "Prefer this over create_arrangement_midi_clip when the clip already exists," making the purpose unmistakable.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: "Prefer this over create_arrangement_midi_clip when the clip already exists" and explains why, citing the loss of loop braces, name, colour, and envelopes with the alternative. It also gives a recommended workflow with `get_arrangement_clip_notes`, making the usage context complete.

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