cue_fire

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive, and the description adds the GO sequencing caveat as behavioral context. It does not explain the destructive side effects, the role of confirm, or what happens after firing, but it also does not contradict the destructiveHint annotation.

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 one concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and includes the most important behavioral caveat in a compact parenthetical. Missing detail is a completeness issue, not a conciseness issue.

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 destructive tool with three parameters, no parameter descriptions, no output schema, and no explicit usage guidance, this description leaves major gaps. An agent cannot confidently determine how confirm or cueList affect the call or what the side effects of firing a cue are.

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%, so the description needs to compensate. It only implies that 'cue' identifies the cue to fire, leaving the confirm boolean and cueList integer entirely unexplained. This is insufficient for reliable invocation.

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 uses the specific verb 'fire' on the resource 'cue' and explicitly distinguishes this tool from sibling cue_go by noting it does not follow GO sequencing unless cue_go is used. This makes the primary action and scope immediately clear.

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 parenthetical 'does not follow GO sequencing unless using cue_go' signals a meaningful difference from a sibling tool and implies when cue_go would be the appropriate choice. However, it stops short of giving explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions.

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