stop_clip

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's job is to add context such as behavior when the clip is not playing, idempotency, or quantization/timing of the stop. It adds none of this; the single sentence merely restates the action implied by the name and annotations.

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 action is front-loaded in one sentence and the parameter list is compact and scannable. No filler or redundant prose, though the parameter block partly repeats schema titles verbatim.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the two required parameters are described at a basic level. Still missing are the index convention, what happens if the clip is already stopped, and how this differs from stop_playback in a nearly 120-tool sibling set.

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%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does partially: it clarifies that track_index identifies the containing track, clip_index identifies the slot, and user_prompt is telemetry metadata. However, it never states whether indices are zero-based, what range is valid, or where the track index comes from (session order vs. visible order), which are the details an agent actually needs.

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?

"Stop playing a clip" gives a specific verb (stop) and resource (clip), so the action is unambiguous. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby siblings stop_playback, fire_clip, or start_playback, leaving the agent to infer the boundary between stopping one clip and stopping transport.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of stop_playback as the alternative for halting all playback. The only hint of applicability is implicit in the verb "stop playing," which assumes a clip is currently playing but never says so.

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