toggle_cue_skip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses what skipping means behaviorally (cues stay visible but are bypassed at playback), which goes beyond the name. However, it omits whether the change persists, what happens with an invalid cueId, and whether a new skip state is returned.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core action is stated first and the behavioral clarification second. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a single-parameter toggle with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the operation and its playback effect. The only gap is the return value / resulting state, which is a minor omission given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% and the single cueId parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no format, constraint, or sourcing detail beyond it, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb ('Toggle') and resource ('skip status of a cue'), leaving no ambiguity about the operation. No sibling tool performs this action, so the unique verb+resource pair is sufficient to distinguish it.

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?

Usage is implied by the semantics of skipping ('bypassed during playback'), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as remove_cue_from_list or delete_cue for permanent removal. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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