clip_set

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Modify', which is minimal. It doesn't mention return values, side effects, whether it overwrites existing values, or any prerequisites like the clip existing. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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: the purpose and instruction come first, followed by per-type field lists. No filler or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It clarifies per-type applicability but omits parameter meanings, return behavior, error conditions, and side effects. The agent would need to infer too much about how to call it 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds value by listing which fields apply to AudioClip vs MidiClip, which is essential. However, it doesn't explain the meaning of each parameter (e.g., what start_beats represents, units, ranges). The field names are self-explanatory to some degree, but detailed semantics are missing.

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 'Modify any field on an existing clip', a specific verb and resource. It lists the editable fields per clip type, distinguishing it from sibling tools like clip_move or clip_resize, though it doesn't explicitly name them. It's unambiguous about its core purpose.

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 instruction 'Pass only fields you want changed' gives clear usage guidance, implying partial updates. It also separates AudioClip and MidiClip fields, helping the agent know which parameters are valid for each type. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use it or name alternatives like clip_move for repositioning.

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