Astra: control playback

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description discloses that the tool accepts commands asynchronously and waits briefly to report the resulting state. This is a valuable behavioral detail that annotations do not cover, providing insight into how the tool executes and what it returns.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct information (actions, argument requirements, async behavior, alternative tool usage) without redundancy or unnecessary detail. It is appropriately sized for a multi-action control tool.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: full action list, conditional parameters, asynchronous execution with state reporting, and a clear alternative path for starting specific media. For a tool with 6 parameters and 10 actions, this is comprehensive.

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%, and each parameter already has a description. The description adds value by mapping each action to its required argument (e.g., 'seek needs positionSeconds'), which consolidates conditional requirements in one place. It also reinforces the volume range (0-1), though that's already in the schema.

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's purpose: controlling playback in Astra with a list of 10 specific actions (play, pause, stop, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like astra_play by explicitly noting 'To start a specific track or album instead, use astra_search then astra_play.'

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?

Provides explicit usage context: this tool controls current playback, and for starting specific media it directs the agent to use astra_search then astra_play. It also explains the asynchronous behavior ('Astra accepts commands asynchronously; this tool waits briefly and reports the state it actually landed on'), which guides expectations for invocation.

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