create_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action (create) but doesn't disclose side effects, such as whether an existing clip in the slot will be overwritten, whether the clip is empty or contains default content, or whether the operation is undoable. The description also doesn't mention any constraints like track/clip index validity.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a clear parameter list. It earns its place without excessive verbosity. The parameter list is a reasonable addition given the 0% schema coverage, though it could be slightly more compact.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown in detail) and 4 parameters, but the description doesn't explain return values or side effects. For a creation tool, it should clarify what happens on success/failure, whether existing clips are replaced, and any prerequisites. The parameter list helps, but the behavioral gaps make it only minimally complete.

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 compensate. It does list all four parameters with brief explanations, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, the explanations are minimal—e.g., 'length' is described as 'length in beats' but no range or format is given, and 'user_prompt' is described as telemetry but its optionality is not clarified beyond the schema default.

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 ('Create a new MIDI clip') and the target resource ('in the specified track and clip slot'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_audio_clip and add_notes_to_clip by specifying MIDI clip creation, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives.

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 implies usage context by specifying the target track and clip slot, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_audio_clip or add_notes_to_clip. It provides the core parameters but no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., track must exist) or when not to use it.

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