edit_clip_notes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key destructive trait: in replace mode existing notes are cleared first. It does not cover required permissions, behavior on missing clips/tracks, note validation errors, or whether add is idempotent, leaving real gaps for a mutation tool.

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 tightly written sentences with the destructive replace behavior front-loaded after the core purpose. No filler, no redundancy beyond the necessary mode clarification.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the destructive replace path but omits error/edge-case behavior and any indication of what is returned on success. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so all four parameters including the mode enum and note fields are already documented. The description restates mode semantics already present in the schema rather than adding new meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb set (add/replace) and resource (MIDI notes in a clip), which is clear and action-oriented. It implicitly contrasts with get_clip_notes (read) but never explicitly names the sibling it complements or differs from, so differentiation remains inferential.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is given: nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over bulk_edit_clips, or when using it is inappropriate (e.g. audio clips, invalid indices). The add/replace distinction is explained, but that is mode selection, not tool selection.

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