set_audio_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about whether this mutates a live clip, whether the clip must already exist, required permissions, reversibility, or error behavior. The 'gain raw 0..1' vs 'gain_display' hint is a useful unit caveat but is parameter-level rather than behavioral.

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?

A single dense paragraph with no filler, and the reference data (warp modes, ranges) is packed efficiently. The fragmentary lead sentence is weak but does not bloat the text.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the musically complex parameters well but omits any explanation of track_index/slot_index addressing and warping, and gives no mutation or return context.

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 compensate, and it does substantial work: warp_mode values with meanings, pitch_coarse in semitones (-48..48), pitch_fine in cents (-50..50), and gain's raw 0..1 range. It leaves track_index, slot_index, and warping unexplained, but the added semantics clearly exceed the bare schema.

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 opening 'Audio clip playback.' is a topical fragment, not a verb+resource statement, so it never explicitly says the tool sets audio clip playback parameters. The parameter notes (warp_mode, pitch, gain) let an agent infer the purpose, but there is no differentiation from close siblings like set_clip, load_audio_clip, or arrangement_audio_clip.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite several sibling tools that touch clip properties. The only hints ('check which your edition has', 'read gain_display') concern value selection rather than tool selection.

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