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 behavioral burden. It states only the primary effect, 'Stop playing a clip,' but omits observable side effects such as whether the clip is reset, whether it is idempotent, or what state the clip returns to.

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 minimal and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a short parameter list. No filler, redundant information, or unnecessary detail is present.

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 three-parameter operation with an output schema, the description adequately defines the target and the required indices. However, it lacks surrounding context such as how this differs from stop_playback or how the clip state is affected, leaving the description only minimally 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates by defining each parameter: the track containing the clip, the clip slot, and the user prompt for telemetry. It does not clarify zero-based indexing or current-playback prerequisites, so a small semantic gap remains.

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 states the specific verb 'Stop' and the resource 'a clip', making the operation unambiguous. The parameter list names clip_index and track_index, which distinguishes it from nearby tools such as stop_playback and fire_clip.

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 gives no guidance on when to use stop_clip versus stop_playback or other clip-control tools. An agent must infer the when-to-use from the tool name and parameter list, with no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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