add_notes_to_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the additive nature (notes are not replaced but appended) and provides valid value ranges for note attributes (pitch, start_time, duration, velocity), which is valuable behavioral context. It does not cover error handling or side effects, but the key behavioral trait is explained.

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?

The description is two short sentences, with the primary action and additive behavior stated first, followed by the note structure. Every sentence adds value, and the formatting is clean and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, additive behavior, and full note dict specification. It adequately equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it omits details about invalid inputs or error behavior.

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?

The description significantly compensates for the vague input schema, especially the notes array. It defines each field within a note dict with types and ranges (pitch 0-127, start_time in beats, etc.), which is essential for correct invocation. The track_index and clip_index are self-explanatory from names, so the overall parameter understanding is high.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('MIDI notes to a clip'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_notes_from_clip by emphasizing the additive behavior, making the purpose 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 communicates usage context by noting 'additive — call repeatedly to build large clips,' which tells the agent this tool is designed for incremental note addition. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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