stop_clip

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

With no annotations available, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without explaining side effects, idle behavior (e.g., what happens if the clip is not playing), or the scope (does it affect other clips? does it reset clip position?). This is a minimal disclosure for a mutating operation.

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 concise and front-loaded: the action is stated in the first sentence, followed by a compact parameter list. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundant or filler content.

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 clip-stopping tool, the action and parameters are covered. However, the absence of usage guidelines and behavioral specifics leaves it incomplete in a tool ecosystem where stop_playback and fire_clip exist as alternatives. The description does not clarify the distinction from these siblings, making it only minimally complete.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description provides meaningful explanations for all three parameters: track_index, clip_index, and user_prompt. It clarifies the role of each parameter, including the telemetry purpose of user_prompt. However, it lacks range constraints, requiredness hints, or formatting details, so it does not fully compensate for the schema gap.

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+resource: 'Stop playing a clip.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like stop_playback (which stops global playback) and fire_clip (which starts a clip). The action is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this stops a specific clip rather than global playback, nor does it reference any related sibling tools. The description leaves usage context entirely implicit.

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