transform_clip

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

The description explains the destructive behavior (overwrites source unless `dest_clip_index` is given), consistent with the `destructiveHint: true` annotation. It also details clamping of out-of-range pitches, ignoring `amount` for invert/retrograde, and requiring `amount > 0` for augment. This adds significant value beyond the annotations, though it could mention reversibility.

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 well-structured with a brief overall statement followed by a clear bulleted list for each operation. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or extraneous information. It is optimally concise for the complexity.

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 complexity (5 parameters, multiple operations, output schema exists), the description covers the essential behaviors and parameter usage adequately. It does not need to explain return values due to the output schema. Minor missing details like the note range or exact behavior of 'write' could be included, but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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 compensates well by explaining the `op` values and how `amount` is used (semitones for transpose, time factor for augment, ignored for others). It also clarifies `dest_clip_index` behavior. However, `track_index` and `clip_index` are not elaborated, assuming obvious context, which is acceptable.

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: 'Read a MIDI clip's notes, apply a classical motif transformation, and write the result.' It identifies the resource (MIDI clip) and specific verb (transform). The distinct operations (transpose, invert, retrograde, augment) are enumerated, making it easy to differentiate from sibling tools like 'edit_notes' or 'humanize_clip'.

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 clear guidance on when to use the optional `dest_clip_index` to avoid overwriting. The four operations are described with their parameter requirements and effects. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives like 'edit_notes' or 'humanize_clip', leaving some ambiguity for selection.

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