transpose_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It provides concrete behavior: MIDI notes are transposed, audio uses pitch_coarse, out-of-range notes can error/clamp/drop, and the return value is a dict. It adds a measured version-specific detail for Live 12.4.5, but doesn't explicitly mention in-place mutation or side effects beyond the transposition itself.

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 well-structured: a one-line summary, a concise Args block, a Returns line, and a short measured note. Every section earns its place and the core purpose is front-loaded without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no annotations, no schema param descriptions, but an output schema, the description covers the input semantics, return type, and an implementation constraint. Minor gaps remain, such as what happens if audio semitones exceed the -48..48 pitch_coarse range, but overall an agent can invoke the tool confidently.

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 fully document parameters. It does: track is an index into song.tracks, slot into track.clip_slots, semitones can be positive or negative, and out_of_range lists the three allowed actions. This is exactly the meaning an agent needs beyond the bare schema names.

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 uses a specific verb ('Transpose') and resource ('clip'), and clearly scopes the operation to MIDI clips via note pitch and audio clips via pitch_coarse. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like quantize_clip or write_clip_notes 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?

It clearly states what the tool operates on (MIDI or audio clips) and how transposition is performed, giving an agent solid context for invocation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or list when-not-to-use conditions, but no transpose sibling exists among the provided tools, so this is still clear enough.

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