set_clip_automation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does a good job explaining step semantics ('each holds value from time for duration beats'), but omits notable behavior: the `clear` parameter defaults to true, meaning an existing envelope is destroyed by default. Auth/permission requirements and return behavior are also unstated.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose then mechanics, no filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool. Slightly terse given that it must also carry the parameter guidance the schema lacks.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage on top-level params, the description should disclose the destructive `clear` default and clarify the indexing/kind/chain parameters. It only covers the points array, leaving key calling details 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?

Top-level schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the point fields (time/value/duration semantics and raw value range), but the other parameters — track_index, slot_index, device_index, kind, chain, parameter, and especially the destructive `clear` default — get no explanation anywhere.

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?

Specific verb (draw) + resource (clip envelope for a device parameter) with a concrete example ('an Auto Filter sweep'). It is distinguishable from siblings like set_device_parameters or create_clip. It does not explicitly route the agent against the nearest siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 implicitly tells the agent how to use the tool ('use many short steps for a smooth ramp') but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance versus set_device_parameters or set_parameter_real, nor any prerequisite like calling get_device_parameters first. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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