clip_fire

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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: idempotency for already-playing clips (returning 'changed=false') and async playback state with unverified verification. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and adds valuable context beyond the tool name. It does not mention potential side effects or prerequisites, but the disclosed details are helpful.

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 three sentences long, which is concise and front-loads the main purpose. However, it lacks structure for easy scanning and omits important parameter explanations. Each sentence adds value, but the omission of parameter info reduces overall efficiency.

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 description explains the action and key behaviors (idempotency, async playback) but does not cover return value structure, error conditions, or prerequisites (e.g., track must exist, clip slot must contain a clip). Without an output schema, more detail on outputs would improve completeness. It is adequate but has notable gaps.

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 description does not mention the parameters 'track_index' and 'clip_slot_index' at all. With schema description coverage at 0%, the agent must infer their meaning from the parameter names alone, which are generic and could be ambiguous. The description adds no semantic value beyond 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 triggers a session clip slot for launching a specific clip in Session view. It uses specific verbs ('trigger', 'launch') and resource ('session clip slot'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'clip_stop' or 'scene_fire', which share similar contexts.

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 includes a usage condition: 'Use when the user wants to launch a specific clip in Session view.' This provides basic context but does not explain when not to use the tool or mention alternatives (e.g., 'clip_stop' to stop, 'scene_fire' to launch a scene). No exclusions or comparisons are given.

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