Stop a live cue by its launch_id. Idempotent - the cue is marked stop-requested so REACT drops it on its next refresh.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| launch_id | Yes | The launch_id of the cue to stop |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description reveals that the operation is idempotent and explains the internal mechanism (marks the cue as stop-requested so REACT drops it on next refresh). This adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations, which only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true.
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, directly states the action and the idempotent behavior, with no filler.
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 simple one-parameter stop action, the description explains the effect and side-effect. It doesn't require an output schema, and the mention of 'live cue' implies the precondition that the cue must be running. This is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke.
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 schema already fully documents launch_id with a clear description (100% coverage). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3.
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 uses the specific verb 'stop' and identifies the resource as a live cue identified by launch_id. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like launch_lighting_cue, ack_lighting_cue, and report_lighting_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 clearly states it stops a live cue, providing context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.
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.