Playback control

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the command equivalences that let an agent predict effects of actions like go/off/load, which is real behavioral context, but it never states that this drives live output, whether changes are reversible, or any permission requirements. Useful but incomplete for a live-control mutation tool.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then command equivalence, then target formats in a compact two-sentence block with no filler. Slightly dense with example lists, but every element 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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description should do more than it does. It covers purpose, action-to-command mapping, and target syntax, but omits live-impact/side-effect disclosure and any note on error behavior for a 3-parameter live playback tool.

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 coverage is 67% (baseline 3), and the description meaningfully extends it: the command examples map onto enum values (go, off, load) and the target list ('Page 2.201', 'Master 3.1', 'Macro 5') goes well beyond the schema's single 'Sequence 1' example. The fade parameter is left to the schema, keeping it just below a 5.

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?

States a specific verb (trigger) and resource (playback function on a sequence or executor), and grounds it with concrete command equivalents like 'Go+ Sequence 1' and 'Off Executor 201'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from overlapping siblings such as gma3_command, gma3_goto_cue, or gma3_run_macro, so it stops short of a 5.

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 equivalent-command examples imply when the tool applies (transport-style playback control), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives like gma3_command or gma3_goto_cue. Usage must be inferred from the examples rather than stated.

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