stop_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing state changes. It simply says 'Stop playing a clip' but does not mention side effects (e.g., whether the clip position resets, if other clips continue playing, or if it's idempotent). As a mutating operation, this is a significant transparency gap.

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 extremely concise: one sentence for purpose and a clear parameter list. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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 simple action tool, the description provides the essential information but lacks behavioral context. There is no output schema, so the description should explain what happens after stopping (e.g., success/failure indicators, effect on clip state). It's adequate minimal coverage but leaves noteworthy gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 description explains both parameters: 'The index of the track containing the clip' and 'The index of the clip slot containing the clip.' This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare integer type, and since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well. However, it omits details like zero-based indexing or range constraints, so it doesn't earn a 5.

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 'Stop playing a clip' uses a specific verb and resource, making the basic purpose clear. It differentiates from sibling tools like fire_clip by the action, but doesn't explicitly note distinctions from stop_playback (global stop) or delete_clip, so it misses the top score.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like stop_playback (which stops all playback) or fire_clip (which starts a clip). The user must infer usage solely from the name, which is insufficient.

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