clear_notes_from_clip

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately states the core behavior (removing notes) and clarifies that the clip itself remains. However, it does not mention what happens to other clip data (e.g., automation, envelopes) or whether the operation only applies to MIDI clips. This is acceptable for a simple tool but lacks deeper side-effect disclosure.

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 exceptionally concise: a one-sentence overview followed by two parameter definitions. It is front-loaded with the action, contains no filler, and is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no nested objects, the description adequately covers the action and parameter semantics. The presence of an output schema likely covers return value details, so the description doesn't need to explain them. It does not mention potential error conditions, but that is not critical for a straightforward operation.

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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must clarify the parameters. It provides concise definitions: 'Track number (1-based)' and 'Clip slot number (1-based).' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's types and titles, though it could be richer (e.g., valid ranges, dependencies between parameters).

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 purpose: 'Remove every MIDI note from a Session clip, leaving the clip in place.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'leaving the clip in place' distinguishes it from destructive clip operations (e.g., delete_clip). This is concise and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description mentions 'leaving the clip in place,' it does not directly state when this should be preferred over other clip manipulation tools (e.g., replace_notes_in_clip, add_notes_to_clip). The agent must infer the usage context from the description alone.

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