Set cue trigger

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the internal Set() sequence (TrigType then TrigTime), that no command-line command is sent, that selection and programmer are untouched, that nothing is sent on a non-existent cue, that TrigType/TrigTime are read back, and even the scope limit of the mutation lock (no isolation from other operators/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?

Front-loaded with the trigger-mode table, then effects, then refusal/read-back and locking caveats — every sentence is load-bearing. It is a dense run-on paragraph rather than a scannable list, which costs it the top mark.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description supplies the return behavior itself ('Reads TrigType and TrigTime back'), plus failure semantics, side-effect boundaries, and concurrency caveats. For a 6-parameter mutation tool this is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the trigger-to-time requirement mapping that the schema's `time` property already documents, adding no format or constraint detail beyond it; cue numbering, verify, and sequence/use_selected_sequence handling are left entirely to the schema.

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 and resource ('Set how an existing cue is triggered') and immediately enumerates the five valid trigger modes with their semantics, so an agent can distinguish it from gma3_set_cue_timing, gma3_store_cue, or gma3_goto_cue without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance per mode: 'time' requires time, 'follow' allows optional time as extra delay, 'go'/'sound'/'bpm' forbid it, and the tool refuses when the cue does not exist. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g., set_cue_timing) or stating when a caller should prefer a different tool.

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