Take a rundown item to air

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

The description adds value beyond annotations by disclosing atomicity, in-memory auto-out that doesn't survive restart, and the return structure. Annotations already indicate it's not read-only, so the description appropriately details the behavior without contradiction.

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 concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then lists arguments and return values in a structured manner. Every sentence serves a clear purpose.

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 complexity of the tool (write, atomic, nested input, return values), the description adequately covers inputs, key behaviors, and return fields. However, it lacks explanation of some return fields like 'unmappedFields' and 'missingNodes', and provides no guidance on when to use this tool relative to siblings.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description lists parameters in a human-readable format but adds little new meaning beyond the schema, except clarifying that 'fields' is a storyField→value mapping.

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 tool resolves a rundown item from its template and takes it to air, with atomic animation and optional auto-out. The verb 'take to air' is specific to this tool, distinguishing it from siblings like singular_prepare_item or singular_update_and_animate.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusion cases, or compare to sibling tools like singular_prepare_item or singular_take_out_all.

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