arrangement_place

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation copies (a mutation) and explains the time addressing scheme with the bar/beat formula, which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about whether existing arrangement clips are overwritten, whether the operation is destructive, or what the call returns.

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 tight sentences, verb front-loaded, with the parenthetical bar-conversion formula earning its space as immediately actionable detail. No filler.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and time semantics but omits overwrite behavior, ordering/quantization effects on existing arrangement clips, and the meaning of two of its three parameters. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% across three required parameters, so the description must compensate. It fully specifies the semantics of `time` (beats, with bar N at (N-1)*4 in 4/4) but leaves `track_index` and `slot_index` completely undefined beyond their names, which under-documents the source addressing.

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 precise verb and resource: 'Copy a Session clip into the Arrangement timeline.' It also disambiguates the source (Session clip) from the destination (Arrangement timeline). It does not distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling arrangement_audio_clip, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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?

'Use it to lay out a full song from scenes' gives one concrete use case, so usage is implied rather than merely absent. However, it names no alternatives (create_clip, arrangement_audio_clip) and gives no when-not or prerequisite conditions, so the agent must infer routing.

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