park_fixture

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that parking 'locks a value regardless of playback,' indicating persistent override behavior. It also notes the return type (string message). While not exhaustive, it gives enough transparency for a relatively simple tool.

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 extremely concise: a single-sentence summary followed by structured Args and Returns. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 tool has only two optional parameters, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers all necessary aspects: parameter usage, return type, and behavioral note. It is complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool 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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains the 'target' parameter with concrete examples ('fixture 1', 'channel 5') and clarifies that omission parks current selection. For 'at_value,' it defines the range (0-100) and the default behavior (omit = park current value). This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clearly states the action ('Park DMX output') and explains it as 'lock a value regardless of playback.' This directly conveys the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'unpark_fixture' or 'set_fixture_value.'

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 provides explicit guidance on parameter usage: omitting 'target' parks current selection, and omitting 'at_value' parks current value. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice, such as contrasting with 'set_fixture_value' for temporary overrides.

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