fire_clip

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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavior: firing is deferred to the next launch-quantization boundary and Live starts the transport, which the agent could not infer from the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the verification/stop paths. Every clause carries information; there is no filler.

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 two-parameter side-effecting tool with no output schema, the description covers timing behavior and the natural follow-up tools. The only real gap is parameter meaning (track/slot addressing), which it leaves entirely to the undocumented schema.

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 0% for both required parameters. The description mentions 'Session slot' and 'track' only in passing and never explains slot indexing, the int-or-string track reference (name vs. index), or valid ranges. With zero schema documentation, the description fails to compensate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Launch the clip in a Session slot'. The Session-slot scoping distinguishes it from the arrangement/transport siblings and from fire_scene, and the quantization note clarifies the launch semantics rather than restating the name.

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?

Explicitly routes follow-up actions to concrete alternatives: check results with get_clip or get_meters, stop with stop_clip or transport. It gives clear context for the surrounding workflow, though it does not state when not to use fire_clip (e.g. vs. fire_scene or clip_action).

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