clear_midi_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action without warning that this is a destructive, likely irreversible operation, nor does it explain behavior on invalid inputs or whether it affects other item properties. For a mutation tool, more transparency is needed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the conciseness comes at the cost of missing important details.

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?

Although an output schema exists (so return values may be described elsewhere), the description fails to provide essential context for this destructive tool: no parameter semantics, no usage guidance, and no behavioral warnings. It is complete only for the simplest 'what does it do' question, not for safely invoking the tool.

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 provides no meaning for the two required parameters, item_id and track_index, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The agent gets no guidance on what these integers represent or how they relate to each other, leaving the agent to guess the correct invocation.

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 a specific verb ('Clear') and a specific resource ('all MIDI notes from a MIDI item'), making the tool's exact function immediately clear. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delete_item (which removes the whole item) or add_midi_note (which adds 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 when to use the tool: when you want to remove all MIDI notes from an item. However, it does not explicitly discuss when not to use it, such as for deleting only specific notes (which would use find_midi_notes_by_pitch and delete or similar), nor does it mention any prerequisites like having a valid track_index and item_id.

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