trigger_transition

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the effect but omits details like whether it's synchronous, what happens if studio mode is off, any side effects, authentication needs, or return value. The mutation nature is implicit but not elaborated.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded. However, it is too minimal to be helpful independently. It earns its place but could include more critical information without losing conciseness.

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 no output schema and low schema coverage, the description should compensate with context about prerequisites (studio mode), behavior on failure, and expected outcomes. It lacks these, making it incomplete for effective agent use.

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 sole parameter 'dry_run' has no description in the schema (0% coverage) and the tool description does not explain it. Its purpose (likely to simulate without actual transition) is left entirely to the agent's inference. No value is added beyond the schema stub.

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 verb 'Trigger' and the resource 'studio-mode transition', specifying the direction (preview → program). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_studio_mode (mode setting), switch_scene (direct scene switch), and set_preview_scene (preview assignment).

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 implication is clear: use this to execute a transition when in studio mode. However, it lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites (e.g., is studio mode required?), when not to use, or alternatives (e.g., direct scene switching). The context of sibling tools suggests additional context could help.

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