REACT/BAE acknowledgement for a launch_id. Idempotently records whether the executor accepted or rejected the cue and which executor observed it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| accepted | Yes | true when REACT/BAE accepted the cue for execution | |
| launch_id | Yes | The launch_id to acknowledge | |
| executor_id | No | Stable REACT/BAE executor instance id | |
| observed_at | No | Executor observation timestamp | |
| rejected_reason | No | Required by convention when accepted=false |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the sparse annotations: it states the operation is idempotent and records both the executor's decision (accepted/rejected) and the observer. This goes beyond the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false annotations, though it does not describe edge cases like duplicate calls or error behavior.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word contributes meaning. It avoids redundancy and is highly scannable.
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 5-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (idempotent record of acceptance/rejection and observer). It does not explain return values or error conditions, but the absence of an output schema lowers the necessity; the description is complete enough for the core use case.
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 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 that this tool records an acknowledgement for a launch_id, specifying the verb 'records' and the resource 'acknowledgement for a launch_id'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like launch_lighting_cue (which initiates) and get_lighting_cue (which retrieves state).
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 implies it is used to acknowledge a cue but does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. There is no comparison to sibling tools like report_lighting_cue or launch_lighting_cue, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct action or resource. Groups like compels, lighting cues, webhooks, and account are clearly separated, and even similar tools (create_compel vs create_compel_from_music) have well-defined differences in input source.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., cancel_compel, launch_lighting_cue, register_webhook). No mixing of conventions or ambiguous verb choices.
With 30 tools, the server is above the 25+ threshold for 'too many'. While the scope includes multiple subdomains, the high number adds cognitive load and risks selection errors for an agent.
Core workflows are present (create, read, cancel, list, search, render), but missing update/delete for compels and media, and no way to modify render configuration beyond defaults.