cue_go

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

The annotation already labels the operation as destructive, and the description adds that the action advances cues sequentially. However, it does not explain what the destructive effect is (e.g., changing the current cue), whether confirmation is involved, or any reversible details.

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 a single, tightly written sentence with no filler. The key action and outcome are front-loaded, though it is sparse enough that some necessary details are omitted.

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 tool marked destructive with an undocumented confirm parameter and no output schema, this description is too thin. It fails to mention the confirm parameter's purpose or to provide any comparison with sibling cue tools, so an agent may not know how to call it safely or choose it correctly.

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?

The input schema contains one optional boolean, 'confirm', with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter or explain when/why to set it, leaving the agent to guess whether confirmation is required or what it guards against.

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 names a specific action ('Press the console Go key') and a concrete resource (the console Go key), then clarifies the effect as 'sequential cue advance.' This differentiates it from siblings like cue_fire or cue_select, which target specific cues rather than advancing the sequence.

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 'sequential cue advance' implies when the tool is appropriate, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this over cue_fire, cue_select, or other cue-related siblings. There are no stated exclusions or alternative conditions.

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