manage_clip_automation

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 tool creates or clears automation envelopes, which implies a mutating effect, but does not disclose consequences like whether existing automation is overwritten, whether the operation is reversible, or if it requires specific permissions. The description also does not mention what happens with 'clear_all' (e.g., all parameters vs a specific one). This is minimal behavioral 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 concise, with a one-line purpose statement followed by a clean parameter list. Each parameter line is short and informational. It could be slightly more compact by moving parameter details to the schema, but the structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema (though its content is not detailed). The description covers all parameters with basic definitions but misses critical context: the precedence of clip_name vs clip_index, the behavior of clear_all, and what the output schema represents. For a mutating tool with no annotation safety net, this is incomplete but not severely under-specified.

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 provides brief definitions for each parameter (track_index: Track number, clip_index: Clip position, etc.) and gives examples for parameter_name. However, it does not explain the interaction between clip_index and clip_name (e.g., which takes precedence) or enumerate accepted values for action beyond the three listed. The description adds some value over the bare schema but lacks depth.

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 creates or clears automation envelopes on arrangement clips, using specific verbs ('create', 'clear') and resources ('arrangement clips'). It distinguishes from siblings like create_clip and set_clip_property, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The scope is well-defined.

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 lists the action parameter with allowed values ('create', 'clear', 'clear_all') but does not explain when to use each action, when to prefer clip_index vs clip_name, or how this tool relates to similar ones like set_clip_property. Some usage context is implied by the action values, but no explicit guidance or exclusions are provided.

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