quantize_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action and parameter meanings, but fails to mention crucial details such as whether the operation is destructive (overwrites original notes), whether it requires the clip to be stopped, or what the return value is (if any). The amount parameter gives some insight into behavior, but major gaps remain.

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 very short (2 sentences plus parameter list) and efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is structured with a clear header line followed by parameter details. However, it could be slightly more organized (e.g., separating parameter descriptions with clearer formatting).

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 complexity (quantizing MIDI notes, which is a modification operation), the absence of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions for required fields leads to a severely incomplete definition. Essential context such as return behavior, error states, and interaction with other clip properties is missing.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage (no descriptions for any parameter). The description adds meaning for 'quantization' (mapping to Live's enum values) and 'amount' (range and purpose), but does not explain 'ctx', 'track_index', or 'clip_index'. Three out of five parameters lack any semantic guidance, leaving the agent to guess.

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 tool's action ('Quantize the notes in a MIDI clip'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'add_notes_to_clip' and 'remove_notes_from_clip' by focusing on quantization. However, it could be more explicit about the scope (MIDI clips only) but the name and context imply it.

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 (e.g., manual note editing via other tools). It does not mention prerequisites (such as the clip being a MIDI clip) or when not to use it (e.g., for audio clips). The parameter descriptions are present but lack usage context.

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