delete_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it succeeds: it discloses the destructive action, the mandatory confirmation flag, the dry-run behavior, and the return dictionary. This is strong transparency for a mutation tool.

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 purpose, then the safety behavior, then concise parameter docs and return type. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 simple three-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers selection, deletion, safety flag, parameters, and return value. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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. The Args section explains track as an index in song.tracks, slot as an index in track.clip_slots, and confirm as the execution gate—adding meaning beyond bare property names. It could be slightly stronger with index base or default handling, but it is sufficient.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete the clip in a Session slot') and clarifies the confirm-gated deletion behavior versus the dry-run inspection mode. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_track or delete_device.

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?

It explicitly says deletion requires confirm=True and that confirm=False inspects the slot and reports what would be deleted, which is concrete usage guidance. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it for deleting clips.

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