live12_clip_add_notes

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses additive semantics and the Live 12 extended attributes, but says nothing about whether existing notes are preserved, whether the clip is created if missing, permission/lock requirements, or the response. For a mutation tool with zero structured safety hints 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. Minor redundancy: 'extended note attributes' and the explicit list of extended attributes cover the same ground, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema and no annotations, yet the description omits the most decision-relevant behavior for a note-creating mutation: whether notes are appended or replace existing content, the requirement for a MIDI clip at track_index/slot_index, and what the call returns. It is incomplete for an agent trying to call this safely.

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 100%, with per-note fields (pitch, velocity, probability, release_velocity, velocity_deviation) fully documented and range-bounded. The description only restates that these extended attributes are supported and adds no syntax, defaults, or units beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (insert MIDI notes into a clip) and names the underlying Live API call (Clip.add_new_notes). The word 'inserts' implies additive behavior, which informally separates it from live12_clip_modify_notes or live12_clip_remove_notes, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 additive framing ('inserts one or more MIDI notes') implies when to reach for this rather than modify_notes, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no preconditions (clip must exist and be MIDI-capable), and no named alternative. Usage must be inferred.

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