set_pending_cue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the key behavior: the tool does NOT fire the cue (critical to distinguish from go_cue/fire_cue). It also explains the 'standby' concept and the intended workflow. However, it does not mention edge cases like invalid cue numbers, overwriting of current pending cue, or any limitations, which would make it fully transparent. The core behavior is well covered, so a 4 is appropriate.

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—two sentences—and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second explains when/how to use it. No 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?

Given the tool's simplicity, the schema's richness, and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains the setting, the non-firing behavior, and the intended sequence with go_cue. However, since there are no annotations and no explicit mention of when to prefer this over fire_cue or go_cue, a small gap remains. For a simple tool, this is nearly complete, so a 4 is warranted.

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 input schema already has 100% description coverage, with clear parameter details (e.g., cue supports point cues, playback defaults to null and references the master playback). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Sets which cue is next, without firing it.' This is a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'without firing it' distinguishes it from fire_cue and go_cue. The reference to ZerOS's 'Next' command adds helpful domain context.

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 provides clear usage context: use it to 'jump the standby cue somewhere else in the stack, then `go_cue` to run it.' This implicitly contrasts with immediate-firing tools and names go_cue as the follow-up action. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like fire_cue or when not to use the tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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