remove_notes_from_clip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds valuable context beyond the name: defaults (from_time=0, full length, all pitches), time_span=None semantics (to end of clip), and the region-limited nature. It does not mention reversibility or effects on other elements, but the core behavior is well described.

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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core action and region, the second provides key defaults and special-time-span behavior. Information is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no annotations, the description is reasonably complete: it covers the primary action, defaults, and a non-obvious sentinel value. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It could mention whether removal is destructive/undoable or if it affects both session and arrangement, but these are not critical gaps given the tool's focused scope.

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. It explains from_time default, time_span=None behavior, and implies 'all pitches' via defaults (though not explicitly mapping from_pitch/pitch_span). It does not explain units or the meaning of pitch_span beyond the phrase 'all pitches', and track_index/clip_index are left to be inferred from names. The description adds some value but does not fully compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses the specific verb 'Remove' with a clear resource ('MIDI notes from a clip') and scopes the action to a 'time/pitch region'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_notes_to_clip and get_clip_notes.

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 implies usage for removing notes but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_notes_to_clip. There is no mention of exclusions or scenarios where another tool would be preferred. The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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