add_notes_to_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: single-undo-step mutation and the crucial fact that existing notes are preserved (append, not replace). It still omits how validation failures surface and whether the clip/track must be MIDI beforehand.

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?

Four tightly packed lines: purpose first, then side effects, example, and edge cases. Every sentence adds a distinct piece of information with zero filler.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, usage example, and failure cases well. The remaining gap is the shape of the primary 'notes' payload, whose required fields are only hinted at by a truncated example.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. The example partially does this by showing positional usage (track_index=0, clip_index=0, notes=[...]), but the note-object fields are elided ('...') and index meaning/range is never explained.

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 and resource ('Add validated MIDI notes') scoped to a precise target ('existing Session clip'). The word 'add' plus 'existing' implicitly separates it from create_clip, clear_clip_notes, and get_clip_notes, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context ('existing Session clip') and enumerates rejection conditions (audio clips, empty slots, invalid MIDI ranges), which functions as when-not guidance. It does not, however, name the alternative sibling (e.g. add_notes_pattern) or state when that should be preferred.

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