delete_arrangement_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 well: it states that deletion removes one clip in one Live undo step, which is essential for understanding reversibility, and warns that clip_index indexes Track.arrangement_clips and must be re-read after structural changes because indices shift. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not mention permissions, failure modes, or what happens if the clip is referenced elsewhere, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 action, then organized into side effects, example, and edge cases. It is appropriately sized and each section adds value. The edge-case sentence is dense but necessary; no sentence is clearly wasteful.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage for two parameters. The description covers side effects, undo behavior, and the critical index-shifting edge case, which is good. However, it omits when to prefer this tool over siblings like delete_clip or move_arrangement_clip, and does not fully compensate for the lack of parameter descriptions on track_index. It is adequate for a simple two-parameter deletion but not 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 for both parameters. It explains clip_index's semantic scope ('indexes Track.arrangement_clips') and gives a concrete example with two integers, but track_index is only indirectly clarified through the example. It adds useful meaning for one parameter and partial context for the other, which is adequate but leaves room for more explicit parameter documentation.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete one clip from the Arrangement timeline.' It clearly distinguishes Arrangement clips from Session clips, which matters because the sibling list contains delete_clip, fire_clip, and multiple arrangement-specific tools (get_arrangement_clips, move_arrangement_clip, set_arrangement_clip_properties). An agent can identify the exact operation without ambiguity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus delete_clip, move_arrangement_clip, or clear_clip_notes. The example and edge-case note imply usage but do not state conditions or alternatives. The description says what it does but not when the agent should choose it over similar deletion or arrangement tools.

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