write_drum_clip

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

Annotations already declare the write/destructive/non-idempotent profile, but the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral caveat: 'writing notes alone does not change song tempo automation' and that the Live tempo map must already match the source. That is valuable context beyond the structured fields. It stops short of describing preview-vs-replace semantics or failure modes.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core conversion action is front-loaded. The phrasing is slightly disjointed between the two halves of the first sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a destructive tool with five parameters, the description omits the one thing an agent most needs: how this differs from write_clip_notes and write_tempo_map, and what exactly gets destroyed on confirm. Preconditions are covered, routing is not.

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 every parameter (including the confirm preview/replace toggle and clip_origin_beat) is already documented in the schema. The description adds tempo-map context but no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the 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?

The description states a verb-and-resource ('convert the source tempo map into clip notes', 'Live note writing'), so the core action is legible. However, it never explains what a 'drum clip' is or how this differs from the sibling write_clip_notes, leaving the agent to guess which writer to pick. The purpose is conveyed but not distinguished.

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 supplies real preconditions ('Create a sufficiently long MIDI clip first', 'Ensure Live's actual tempo map matches the source map'), which tell the agent when the call will succeed. But there is no guidance on when to use this versus write_clip_notes or write_tempo_map, and no exclusions, so usage is only implied.

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