launch_clip

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a state-changing but non-destructive action. The description adds the 'Plan or launch' distinction, implying a non-mutating planning mode and a mutating launch mode, but it does not disclose that launching starts playback or that execution requires a confirmation token.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every term ('Plan', 'launch', 'exact', 'Session clip slot') carries meaning, making it a model of conciseness.

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?

The tool has a complex two-phase plan/execute protocol with state-version checks and confirmation tokens, and there is no output schema. However, the parameter descriptions compensate by explaining the dry-run, planHash, confirmationToken, and expectedStateVersion relationships, so the schema carries most of the contextual burden. The description still lacks sibling differentiation and explicit workflow guidance, leaving it minimally viable but not complete.

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 all six parameters have detailed descriptions, including the dry-run/confirmation-token workflow. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond framing the operation as 'plan or launch', so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb pair, 'Plan or launch', and a specific resource, 'one exact Session clip slot', which clearly indicates the tool targets a single clip rather than a scene. It is clear enough to be distinguished from sibling tools like launch_scene or stop_clip, though it does not explicitly name them.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as launch_scene, stop_clip, or arrangement-related tools. It also does not explain the plan-then-launch workflow or that a dry run should precede execution, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely from parameter descriptions.

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