create_audio_clip

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions the version dependency, the requirement for an empty clip slot, and the need for an audio track. Annotations only provide destructiveHint=false; the description clarifies the mutation's nature and prerequisites. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: starts with the core action, then version requirement, then parameter list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. No wasted words.

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 three required parameters, the presence of an output schema, and the single annotation, the description covers all necessary preconditions and parameter semantics. It leaves no obvious gaps for an agent to misuse 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains all three parameters: track_index, clip_index, path. It adds contextual details (absolute path, audio file examples, preconditions) that the schema alone lacks, providing complete semantic meaning.

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 action: creating an audio clip in an audio track's clip slot by importing a file. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_clip' (which likely creates MIDI clips) and 'set_clip_audio' by specifying the import mechanism and track type. The version requirement adds specificity.

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 provides preconditions (target track must be audio, slot must be empty, requires Live 12.0.5+) but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when to use this tool over alternatives. Usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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