quantize_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. It discloses that the tool uses mode='replace' and that it verifies the result, which tells the agent this is a mutating operation. It also explains the strength and quantize_ends behavior. A slight gap is that it doesn't state whether the operation is destructive to undo history or whether it can be applied to empty/session clips, but overall it gives meaningful behavioral detail beyond the schema.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action and target, followed by clear parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place, including the write/verify behavior. Slight verbosity: 'Reads notes, calculates quantized positions, writes back using mode='replace', and verifies the result' could be tightened, but it is still efficient.

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 description covers the core workflow (read, quantize, write, verify), parameter meanings, and return value. An output schema exists, so the return dictionary details are not required. The tool is a mutation that replaces clip notes, and the description makes that clear. Minor gaps: no mention of what happens on invalid track/slot indices or whether the operation preserves note velocity/other note properties, but these are not critical for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 explains the meaning of grid (with example values 0.25 and 0.5), strength (0.0 no change to 1.0 full snap), and quantize_ends (whether durations are quantized). track and slot are only referred to as 'Track index' and 'Scene/slot index', which matches their schema titles but adds the contextual detail that they are indices into song.tracks and track.clip_slots. This is strong compensation for the missing schema descriptions.

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 ('Quantize') and resource ('MIDI clip note positions and lengths') with an explicit target ('to a specified beat grid'), and it distinguishes itself from related editing tools like transpose_clip and write_clip_notes by focusing on quantization. The action and scope are unambiguous.

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 when to use this tool: when a MIDI clip needs note positions/durations snapped to a beat grid. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sibling context makes the differentiation clear (e.g., read_clip_notes/write_clip_notes for raw note editing). Lacks explicit 'use X instead' guidance, so it does not reach 5.

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