strudel_hush

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the key mutation: it stops playback and clears blocks (a destructive global effect). However, it says nothing about reversibility, whether other state (tempo, layers) survives, or permissions, leaving gaps a mutation tool would ideally fill.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the effect and scope with zero 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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description communicates what happens (global stop plus block clearing) sufficiently to invoke it. It stops short of noting state persistence or side effects on other Strudel subsystems.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies.

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 a specific verb pair (stop, clear) and names the resource (Strudel and its blocks), clearly scoping a global stop rather than a single-block edit. It does not explicitly name siblings like strudel_remove_block, so differentiation is implied by 'everything' rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'stop everything' suggests a global halt, contrasted against the sibling tidal_hush or per-block tools, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative routing is given.

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