fire_clip

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Start playing a clip') but doesn't explain what happens if the clip is already playing, whether this affects other clips or playback, error conditions, or the expected outcome. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a clear parameter list. It avoids unnecessary words, but the parameter section could be more integrated (e.g., explaining indices in context) rather than a bulleted list, slightly reducing efficiency.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and parameters but lacks details on behavior, usage context, and error handling. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to explain return values, but more completeness is needed for a playback tool.

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 lists the parameters ('track_index' and 'clip_index') and their roles, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't add meaningful semantics beyond what the schema titles ('Track Index', 'Clip Index') imply. It fails to explain what these indices represent (e.g., zero-based, range constraints) or how they relate to the system, offering only basic identification without deeper context.

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 clearly states the action ('Start playing a clip') and identifies the resource ('a clip'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'start_playback' or 'stop_clip', which also involve playback control, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific tool.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'start_playback' (for overall playback) or 'stop_clip' (for stopping clips). It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the clip must exist or be loaded) or typical scenarios for firing clips, offering minimal usage direction.

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