create_audio_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API version requirement and prerequisites, which is useful, but it does not describe what happens on failure (e.g., errors if track is not audio, slot not empty), side effects on the session, or any rollback behavior. It also doesn't clarify the return value, though an output schema exists. The transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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 reasonably concise, with the core purpose stated first, followed by a version requirement and a bulleted parameter list. Each sentence serves a purpose. It could be trimmed slightly (e.g., the version requirement is detailed), but it remains efficient and scannable.

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?

For a tool with an output schema (though its content is unknown here), the description covers the essential invocation context: what it does, when it applies (prerequisites), and what each parameter means. It doesn't explain the return value, but the output schema likely covers that. Given the moderate complexity and existing schema, the description is sufficiently complete, though it could add failure scenarios to be more robust.

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 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It does so clearly: track_index, clip_index, path, and user_prompt each get an explanation, including constraints like 'absolute path' and 'supported audio file'. It adds meaning beyond the schema (e.g., that the slot must be empty) and clarifies the telemetry purpose of user_prompt. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 verb ('Create'), resource ('audio clip in an audio track's clip slot'), and method ('by importing a file'). It is specific and distinguishes it from generic 'create_clip' by explicitly mentioning 'audio', though it doesn't name sibling tools. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly contrasting with MIDI clip creation, but the purpose is 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 concrete usage context: it requires Ableton Live 12.0.5+, and specifies prerequisites (target track must be audio, clip slot must be empty). This helps the agent decide when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like create_clip or fire_clip, leaving some inference to the agent.

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