replace_notes_in_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently describes the destructive clearing behavior and the precise outcome ('exactly the notes given'). However, it does not mention potential edge cases like invalid notes or missing clips.

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 highly concise: two sentences for the core behavior plus a structured parameter list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is scannable 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 description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and key behavior for a moderately complex tool. It does not mention error conditions or value ranges, but the presence of an output schema covers return values, making it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully compensates by listing all three parameters with meanings: track_index (1-based), clip_index (1-based), and notes (structure with pitch, start_time, duration, velocity, mute). This adds substantial meaning beyond the generic schema.

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?

Description clearly states the action ('Replace a clip's contents') and the resource ('clip's contents'), with a specific process: 'clear every existing note, then write these.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling add_notes_to_clip by contrasting append vs. replace behavior.

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 explicitly mentions when to use this tool: when you want the clip to end up with exactly the provided notes. It contrasts with add_notes_to_clip (which only appends), giving a clear alternative and usage context.

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