studio_goto

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

The description richly explains behavior: the card prevents flash/half-hydrated view, waits for network settle, optional wait_for selector, and skeleton loaders clearing. No annotations exist, so the description fully bears the transparency burden and meets it excellently.

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 a single paragraph of around 70 words, front-loading the core purpose and key details. It is efficient but could be slightly tighter; still, every sentence adds value.

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 complexity (5 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter details sufficiently. It explains why the transition card exists and what triggers its removal, making the tool's behavior predictable.

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% with descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description adds context beyond the schema: explains the transition card's purpose, dwell_ms as minimum display time, and wait_for as a content readiness check. This improves understanding.

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 the tool navigates to a URL with a designed transition card, avoiding loading flashes. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (like studio_click, studio_start) by specifying the unique transition mechanism and use case.

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 recommends using the tool for 'the opening shot AND every surface change' and advises giving each a short title. It implies when to use (navigation) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives; however, sibling tools cover different actions.

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