midi_clip_quantize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions the core mutation (snapping note start times) and explains the strength parameter (0..1) as partial snapping, but does not disclose whether the operation modifies the clip in place, whether it affects all notes or only selected, whether it is reversible, or what the return value is. For a mutation tool, these are significant gaps.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the essential grid explanation and strength constraint. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.

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 low-complexity tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: the action, grid units, and strength range. However, it omits behavioral details like in-place modification and note scope, which would be helpful but are not critical for a simple quantize operation. Overall, it is nearly complete for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does explain grid_beats with concrete examples (0.25 = 16th notes) and strength with a range (0..1). clip_id is not explicitly explained, but its purpose is self-evident from the context. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema, compensating well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'snap note start times' on a specific resource 'a clip' to 'the nearest grid division'. It also defines the grid unit (beats) and gives examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools like midi_notes_add which add notes, or midi_notes_clear which clears them. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it (after notes exist, to align timing) but does not explicitly state prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it. For instance, it doesn't mention that it modifies the clip in place or that it should be used after midi_notes_add. The guidance is implied by the action itself but not spelled out.

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