delete_arrangement_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action 'Delete' but doesn't disclose side effects (e.g., whether deletion is permanent, if it affects undo history, if it requires specific permissions or view state). It also doesn't mention what happens if both clip_index and clip_name are provided or if neither matches. This is a mutation tool with no behavioral disclosure beyond the verb.

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 front-loaded with the purpose. The parameter list is clear and each line is informative. No fluff. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., using bullet points) but it's efficient and readable.

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 (3 params, one required, no annotations, no output schema details), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values (though output schema exists, it's not described), error conditions, or edge cases like invalid indices. It also doesn't clarify the relationship between clip_index and clip_name (which takes precedence). For a destructive operation, more context is needed.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain each parameter: track_index (1-based), clip_index (1-based), clip_name (alternative to clip_index). This adds meaning beyond the schema, which only has titles and defaults. However, it doesn't clarify precedence when both clip_index and clip_name are given, or how clip_name is matched (exact? case-sensitive?). It's adequate but not thorough.

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 action ('Delete an arrangement clip') and identifies the resource (arrangement clip). It distinguishes from siblings like 'delete_clip' (which likely deletes session clips) by specifying 'arrangement clip'. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'delete_clip' or other deletion tools, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_clip' or 'clear_notes_from_clip'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., clip must exist, track must be valid) or context (e.g., arrangement view vs session view). The description implies usage via parameter names but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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