Update variables on a live cue (e.g. change cycle speed or intensity mid-show). Only the variables you pass change; the rest keep their current values. Stopped cues are rejected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| launch_id | Yes | The launch_id of the cue to update | |
| variables | Yes | Variables to set (name -> value), e.g. {"speed": 0.75} |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, the description adds valuable behavioral context: only passed variables change (others keep current values) and stopped cues are rejected. This goes beyond the annotations and informs the agent about partial updates and input validation.
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 three sentences, all essential: the action with example, the partial-update behavior, and the rejection condition. No filler or redundancy.
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 targeted update tool with two well-described parameters, the description covers the key behavioral aspects (live cue requirement, partial update, stopped cue rejection). It doesn't mention return values, but no output schema exists and this is not critical for tool selection or invocation. The description is sufficiently complete for reliable use.
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 coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explaining that variables is a partial update (only passed variables change) and provides an example format (e.g., {"speed": 0.75}), which clarifies the expected object structure beyond the schema's generic 'name -> value' description.
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 'Update variables on a live cue' with specific examples (cycle speed or intensity), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like launch_lighting_cue and stop_lighting_cue by focusing on modifying an already-running cue.
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 gives clear usage context: it's for live cues mid-show, and explicitly states 'Stopped cues are rejected,' which is a key exclusion. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context makes it clear when to use this tool versus launching or stopping a cue.
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.