delete_clip

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

The description substantially expands on the destructiveHint annotation by explaining exactly what is removed, that confirm=True is required, that confirm=False changes nothing and returns a loss report, that slot indices do not shift, and that clips already arranged survive. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 with a concise opening, a clear confirm/return section, and a note section for important caveats. Every sentence earns its place; the text is thorough without being bloated, and the most important behavioral facts are front-loaded.

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 destructive tool, the description covers the key operational questions: what gets deleted, what must be passed to actually delete, what happens without confirmation, whether indices shift, how it differs from the main alternative, and how it interacts with arrangement copies. Given the annotations and output schema already exist, nothing critical 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 already provides full descriptions for all three parameters, including the confirm parameter's true/false behavior. The description restates the confirm requirement but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. This matches the baseline expected when schema coverage is 100%.

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 the clip in a Session slot, its notes and envelopes with it.' It clearly distinguishes this from related operations by explaining that emptying a clip is not the same as deleting it, and by contrasting with write_clip_notes. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does or how it differs from its siblings.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to prefer an alternative: 'Prefer write_clip_notes with an empty list and mode="replace" where the slot should stay filled.' It also clarifies the confirm=False flow as a dry-run/look-before-committing option. This is concrete, actionable routing guidance rather than vague context.

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