import_arrangement_audio

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the underlying native call, the read-back of file/position/Warp, and that timing is verified by a separate field. Annotations cover the safety profile (mutation, non-destructive, not idempotent), so this added behavioral context is real value. It omits the confirm/rollback semantics the schema exposes.

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?

Two short, front-loaded lines with no filler; the core action and the destination constraint come first. The read-back/verification line is slightly cryptic but still earns its place as behavioral context.

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?

With an output schema present, return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations carry the safety profile, so the description is near-complete for a 5-parameter mutation tool. The main gap is that it never addresses the confirm/removal parameter the schema introduces.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters, including warp, track, at_beat, confirm, and audio_path. The description restates the imported fields (file, track, position, Warp) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (import) and resource (arrangement audio) and names the mechanism (native Track.create_audio_clip), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like arrange, create_clip, and load_sample. It is clear without referring to sibling schemas, though it does not explicitly say which sibling it replaces.

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?

Gives a precondition ("Destination must have no Arrangement clips") that bounds when the tool can run, but offers no alternatives or routing guidance when that condition fails. The agent must infer that create_clip/arrange is the fallback.

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