set_clip_property

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the meaning and effect of each property (e.g., 'muted - True deactivates the clip') and notes which properties apply to audio vs MIDI clips. However, it does not mention side effects, error conditions, or whether the operation is reversible, which would be valuable for a mutating tool.

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 long but every sentence serves a purpose. It is front-loaded with the core operation, then organizes the property list and parameters in a clear, structured format. There is no redundant wording, and the detailed property explanations are necessary given the tool's versatility.

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 (many properties, 4 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics well. It lists all properties with meanings, parameter formats, and applicability. It lacks explicit error-handling or return-value details, but these are likely covered by the output schema and are less critical for a setter.

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 input schema has zero descriptions, so the description fully compensates. It specifies that track_index and clip_index are 1-based, enumerates the valid property_name values (the list of writable names), and explains that the value type depends on the property. This gives an agent complete information to construct valid calls.

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 'Set one property on a Session clip,' which is a specific verb+resource. It enumerates the writable properties, distinguishing it from siblings like set_clip_name (which only sets the name) and set_arrangement_clip_property (which targets arrangement clips) by explicitly limiting scope to 'Session 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 context that this tool is for Session clips and lists all settable properties, so an agent can infer when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions (e.g., 'use set_clip_name for name-only changes'), but the phrase 'Session clip' and the property list implicitly differentiate it from similar tools.

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