transport

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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the stopped-state side effect on the start marker, the meaning of back_to_arrangement, and the fact that it returns the action plus transport state read on the next Live tick. Rate limits or failure modes are not mentioned.

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-loaded with the core purpose, then action semantics, then position format, then an example call. Dense but every clause earns its place; the only mild cost is the long parenthetical action list.

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 tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage, the description supplies the missing enum semantics, the position format, the return-value note, and an example. Nothing critical is absent, though the lack of explicit sibling routing keeps it short of full completeness.

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% (the action string has no enum and position has no description), so the description carries the full burden — and it does: it defines every accepted action value plus the accepted position formats (beats, 'bar.beat.sixteenth', or a locator name) with a concrete example.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Control playback') and enumerates the full set of action values with short parenthetical semantics, so an agent knows exactly what the tool operates on. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like fire_clip/stop_clip, but the global-transport scope is evident from the action list.

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?

Usage is implied through the enumerated actions (e.g. 'back_to_arrangement' explains its own condition, 'while stopped, play/jump move the start marker'), but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-an-alternative guidance, such as when to use transport('stop_all_clips') versus stop_clip on an individual clip.

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