pixera_apply_cue_by_number

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fire' implies a live mutation, but there is no disclosure of whether it interrupts the running cue, whether the cue number must already exist, what happens on an invalid number, or whether transport must be running.

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 with no waste. It is arguably too terse for a mutation tool, but nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

The tool is simple (two integer params) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with zero annotations and zero schema param coverage, the description is thin for a live-firing operation and leaves the agent guessing about side effects.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description only partially compensates: it clarifies that cue_number is a cue's number (not a name or id) and that the timeline is identified by index. It does not clarify index origin, ordering, or valid ranges, so the two integer params remain largely opaque.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Fire a cue by its cue number on a timeline by index.' The 'by its cue number' and 'by index' qualifiers distinguish it from the sibling pixera_apply_cue, though the differentiation is implied 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of when this should be chosen over pixera_apply_cue or pixera_set_timeline_transport, and no prerequisites. The agent must infer the choice from the tool name alone.

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