stop_all_clips

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

Annotations already mark the operation as read-write but non-destructive. The description adds valuable context by stating it is 'Playback-only' and 'does not delete or mute clips,' and by calling out the guarded plan/execute flow. It does not deeply describe state effects, but the annotations plus this safety framing cover the key behavioral ground.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The main action and scope are front-loaded, and the safety clarification about not deleting or muting clips earns its place by preventing common misuse.

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 single-purpose stop-all tool with fully documented parameters, the description supplies the essential scope, safety profile, and plan/execute pattern. It does not elaborate on edge cases like 'no clips playing' or return behavior, but those are minor given the schema and the tool's narrow purpose.

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 schema already explains every parameter. The description's 'Plan or stop' and 'guarded step' hint at the dryRun/confirmationToken workflow but do not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('stop') and a precise resource ('every playing Session clip'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling `stop_clip`, which targets a single clip. The 'Plan or stop' phrasing also communicates the two execution modes, and the 'does not delete or mute clips' clarification prevents confusion with destructive operations.

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?

It clearly communicates the intended use case: stopping all playing Session clips at once, and it explicitly excludes deletion/muting. However, it does not name alternatives such as `stop_clip` for individual clips or `panic`/`transport_stop` for transport-level stopping, so the when-not-to-use guidance is somewhat implicit.

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