set_clip_follow_action

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the clip advances on its own, that action_a/action_b are chosen 'by chance,' and that time is measured in bars. It doesn't mention permissions, reversibility, or return values, but the core behavioral mechanics are clearly described.

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 compact and well-structured: two purpose/usage sentences followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence adds information—no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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?

All seven parameters are explained, and the general follow-action behavior is clear enough to invoke the tool. Some action values like 'any,' 'other,' and 'jump' are listed without further definition, and there is no mention of return values or error conditions, but the description covers the essential invocation 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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description fully compensates by explaining every parameter: track_index, clip_index, action_a/action_b with valid enum values, chance with a weighting range, time in bars, and enabled as a toggle. This is exactly the kind of semantics an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly.

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 begins with 'Set a clip's follow action, so it advances to another clip on its own,' which clearly identifies both the action and its effect. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling clip tools like set_clip_name or set_clip_loop, while also explaining the unique generative behavior.

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 line 'This is how you get generative arrangements that progress while each track keeps looping independently' provides a clear use case and context. There are no explicit alternative tools or exclusions, but the intended scenario is well conveyed.

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