live12_clip_set_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for a mutation tool, yet it says nothing about whether omitted properties are left unchanged, whether the change is undoable, what happens if track/slot indices are invalid, or whether loop_start/loop_end are validated against each other. The property list largely restates the parameter names already in the schema.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and it spends its words on the property names rather than filler. Nothing is padded.

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, and the description does not state partial-update behavior, error conditions, or what the tool returns after a successful write. For a 6-parameter mutation tool this leaves real gaps, though the enumerated properties give the agent a decent mutation footprint.

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% and each parameter carries units and semantics (beats, zero-based indices), so the schema does the work. The description adds only the LOM mapping and no extra format or constraint detail.

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 (configures) and resource (loop and marker parameters of a clip) and enumerates the exact Live object properties touched (Clip.loop, loop_start, loop_end, start_marker). It is clearly a clip-level operation distinct from track_set_properties or scene_set_properties by name, though it never explicitly says so.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus live12_transport_set_loop (which sets global loop) or live12_audio_clip_set_warp, nor any prerequisites such as the clip needing to exist or be MIDI vs audio. The agent must infer all selection criteria.

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