Play Source Monitor

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

Annotations declare non-readOnly and non-idempotent but say nothing about failure modes or verification. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts beyond the annotations: the no-clip-loaded failure condition and the caveat that movement is not verified because the legacy API offers no same-call position readback. It stops short of describing blocking/async behavior or how to confirm playback afterwards.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then failure condition, then the verification caveat. Each sentence carries information; the final one is dense but justifies itself by flagging an important limitation.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it correctly focuses on the action, the failure precondition, and the verification gap. It could additionally note blocking/async behavior or point to get_source_monitor_position/stop_playback, but nothing essential for calling it is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents 'speed' including its default and reverse semantics. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 ('Request playback') and a specific resource/target ('the clip in the Source Monitor'), so it is distinguishable from the surrounding timeline/transport tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as play_timeline or stop_playback, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

Gives one concrete precondition - 'Fails when no clip is loaded' - which tells the agent when the call will fail. However, it never routes the agent relative to alternatives (play_timeline for the timeline, stop_playback to halt), so usage is only implied.

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