stop_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Stop playing' implies a mutation action, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what happens if the clip isn't playing, or any side effects (e.g., does it reset clip position?). This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by bullet-point parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or vague language.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the basic purpose and parameters adequately. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, it should ideally include more behavioral context (e.g., error conditions, side effects) to be fully complete.

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 explicitly lists both parameters ('track_index' and 'clip_index') and explains their purpose ('The index of the track containing the clip', 'The index of the clip slot containing the clip'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's 0% description coverage. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.

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 ('Stop playing') and the target resource ('a clip'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'stop_playback' or 'fire_clip', which might have related functionality in a music/DAW context.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether a clip must be playing first), exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools like 'stop_playback' (which might stop overall playback) or 'fire_clip' (which might start clips).

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