Goto a cue (playback)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it identifies the operation as a playback mutation with live-output impact, explains that success only means command acceptance, discloses asynchronous crossfade completion that is not verified, states the refusal condition, clarifies selection/programmer are untouched, records verification as not_requested, and limits the mutation lock's scope against other operators or clients.

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 front-loaded with the operation type and command form, and each sentence contributes a distinct fact (mutation semantics, async caveat, refusal, non-effects, verification status, lock scope). It is dense but readable; minor redundancy appears in 'PLAYBACK MUTATION' followed by 'Goto is a playback mutation.'

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides everything an agent needs to invoke it safely: command shape, required parameter mapping, failure condition, concurrency limitations, and the distinction between command acceptance and crossfade completion. Return values need not be explained because no output schema exists.

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%, so the schema already explains each parameter thoroughly. The description adds the command template ('Goto Sequence n Cue c [Fade s]') which maps three parameters to their positions, but provides no extra semantics (defaults, edge cases, or interactions) beyond what the schema already documents.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair ('sends Goto Sequence n Cue c', 'jumps the sequence to that cue and changes live output') and distinguishes the tool's side-effect profile from programmer/selection tools ('Does not change the selection or the programmer'). It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling such as gma3_playback or gma3_command, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 explains what the tool does and when it refuses ('Refuses (nothing sent) when the cue does not exist'), but never states when an agent should choose this over siblings like gma3_playback, gma3_command, or gma3_select. Usage is only implied by the effect, with no explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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