fire_scene

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

Annotations only declare the safety envelope (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: it starts the transport, applies the scene's tempo/time signature, respects launch quantization, and describes force_legato's immediate legato behavior — all non-obvious side effects not derivable from structured fields.

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?

Front-loads the core action and consequence, then tacks on the force_legato nuance and the stop/audition routing. Every sentence carries information, though packing the audition/stop guidance into one clause is slightly dense.

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?

With no output schema and only safety annotations, the description supplies the missing behavioral context (transport start, tempo application, legato, stop path). It does not describe any return value or error conditions, but for a fire-and-act tool whose result is observed via get_meters, coverage is adequate.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it does: 'scene (index or name)' clarifies the anyOf integer/string choice, and 'force_legato launches clips immediately in legato' explains the boolean's effect. Both parameters are covered, though the quantized (non-legato) default behavior could be spelled out slightly more explicitly.

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 a scene (index or name)') and immediately explains the effect on the row's clips, distinguishing it from fire_clip (single clip) and create_scene/set_scene (scene management). An agent can tell what this does and how it differs from siblings without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: audition with get_meters, and stop via transport("stop_all_clips") or transport("stop"). It names concrete alternatives for the stop/audition workflows but does not explicitly contrast fire_scene against fire_clip, so the when-not-to-use boundary is implicit rather than stated.

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