panic

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

The description adds some behavioral context by mentioning two modes ('plan or stop') and the guarded nature of the operation. Annotations already indicate it is not read-only and not destructive, and the description does not contradict them, but it does not explain side effects, token expiry, or state-version expectations.

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 sentence with no redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy to scan.

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 tool with a two-phase guarded workflow and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain that a dry run returns a planHash and confirmationToken, that the confirmationToken is short-lived and single-use, or that expectedStateVersion must match the state at planning time. The agent must reverse-engineer the workflow from the schema alone.

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 input schema already documents dryRun, planHash, confirmationToken, and expectedStateVersion. The description's 'plan or stop' phrasing loosely maps to the dry-run versus confirm flow but does not explain how the parameters relate to those two modes.

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 clear action ('plan or stop Live playback') and a specific resource, which is enough to understand the core purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling tools like transport_stop or stop_all_clips, so an agent must infer what makes 'panic' distinct.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transport_stop or stop_all_clips. The phrase 'guarded panic operation' hints at a special use case, but the description never states when that use case applies or when it should be avoided.

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