step_clip_add

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the data structure of channels and patterns and step_length semantics, but it does not disclose whether the clip is appended, replaces an existing clip, or what side effects occur on the track. For a mutation tool with no annotation safety profile, this is a meaningful 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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then gives compact, technical detail about the two most complex parameters and step_length. The final sentence about being cleaner than individual notes is somewhat promotional but still useful for tool selection. Overall, the length is appropriate and every sentence contributes value.

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?

This is a complex tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 13% schema description coverage. The description does not explain start_beats and length_beats semantics, repeat_sequence behavior, or what happens after the clip is added to the track. An agent would still need to guess several behavioral and parameter details to invoke 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 description coverage is only 13%, so the description must compensate, and it does add meaningful semantics for 'channels' and 'patterns' by explaining their nested structure and step string format. However, it leaves required parameters like track_id, start_beats, and length_beats, plus repeat_sequence, without any explanation beyond the schema, so it only partially offsets the low 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 specific verb and resource: 'Add a step clip (drum-machine grid) to a track.' It clearly distinguishes this from individual MidiClip note insertion by noting it is 'Way cleaner than 80 individual MidiClip notes,' which helps an agent separate it from midi_clip_add and midi_notes_add.

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 'Way cleaner than 80 individual MidiClip notes' line implies the tool is preferred for drum-machine-style patterns, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like drum_pattern or midi_clip_add. There is no explicit when-not-to-use or comparison to other sibling tools, leaving usage guidance somewhat implied rather than fully stated.

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