hydra_transport

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

The description discloses a critical side effect beyond the annotations: 'This changes the whole piece, human-written blocks included — say so if someone is playing along.' It also reveals performance implications ('Larger costs fps') and that video out sends the set size. These traits are not encoded in the annotations and substantially inform the agent's use.

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 first sentence states purpose immediately, followed by a parameter list and a high-value global caveat. No redundant filler; each line contributes semantic or behavioral information that the schema and annotations do not provide.

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 the presence of an output schema and simple optional parameters, the description is complete: it covers all parameter semantics, global side effects, practical limits, and collaborative etiquette. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly without further inference.

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?

Input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description carries full parameter burden. It does so thoroughly: speed's multiplier meaning and range, bpm's beat-stepping behavior with an example, and width/height's range and linked setting are all explained. Every parameter gains meaning absent from 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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set the global clock and canvas size.' The four parameters are enumerated with concrete meanings, making the tool's scope unmistakable and distinct from render/output siblings. No ambiguity about what resource is being modified.

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 instruction 'Pass only what you want to change' gives a clear usage pattern)Skip. The caveat about changing 'the whole piece, human-written blocks included' implies collaborative contexts. However, the description does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state when not to use it, so the routing guidance remains implicit.

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