add_notes_to_clip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is an 'Add' operation (implying mutation/write), but doesn't clarify whether this appends to existing notes or replaces them, what permissions are required, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on failure. The description mentions the parameters but doesn't explain the tool's actual behavior beyond the basic action.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by a parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose - the first establishes the tool's function, and the parameter list provides necessary context. It's appropriately sized for a tool with three parameters, though could benefit from slightly more behavioral context.

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?

Given that there's an output schema (which means the description doesn't need to explain return values), and the tool has moderate complexity with 3 parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it should provide more behavioral context about how the addition works and any constraints or side effects.

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?

The description lists all three parameters and provides some semantic context for 'notes' (specifying it's a list of note dictionaries with specific fields). However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema documentation - it doesn't explain valid ranges for indices, note field data types, or constraints. The parameter information is helpful but incomplete.

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 ('Add MIDI notes') and target resource ('to a clip'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'create_clip' or 'fire_clip' by focusing specifically on note addition rather than clip creation or triggering. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other potential note-related operations that might exist in the broader context.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the clip must already exist), nor does it suggest when other tools like 'create_clip' might be needed first. There's no indication of error conditions or constraints beyond what's implied by the parameters.

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