create_clip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the creation action but lacks details on permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing clips, error conditions (e.g., invalid indices), or the response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 in the first sentence, followed by a clean parameter list. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy. The structure is efficient and easy to parse, with no wasted words.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context (e.g., side effects, error handling) and usage guidelines. With no annotations, it should do more to compensate, but the output schema reduces the need to explain returns.

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 explicitly lists and briefly explains all three parameters ('track_index', 'clip_index', 'length'), adding meaning beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. It clarifies that 'length' is in beats with a default value, which compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions. However, it doesn't detail constraints like valid index ranges or unit specifics beyond 'beats'.

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 specific action ('Create a new MIDI clip') and the target resources ('in the specified track and clip slot'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_midi_track' (which creates tracks) or 'add_notes_to_clip' (which modifies existing clips). The verb+resource combination is precise and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the track must exist), exclusions (e.g., not for audio clips), or comparisons to siblings like 'fire_clip' (which triggers playback) or 'stop_clip' (which halts it). Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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