Create clip launcher

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses meaningful behavior: the launcher panel is opened in Perform/Panel mode, tapping a clip fires its cue, and morph_time controls instant vs. eased crossfading using the same engine as manage_cue. This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first states the core purpose and structure, second explains interaction and morph behavior, third gives the prerequisite. The description is front-loaded with the essential 'Build an Ableton-style clip launcher' and contains no 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 builder tool with no output schema, the description covers the key context: what it builds, how it relates to manage_cue, required prior setup, and the key behavioral options. It could mention overwrite behavior or failure modes, but the essential invocation context is present.

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 has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context around cues and morph_time (e.g., 'one per named cue', 'same engine manage_cue uses'), but the schema already documents each parameter adequately. No critical parameter semantics are missing.

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 'Build' and names a concrete output: 'an Ableton-style clip launcher: a grid panel (Container COMP) of clip buttons, one per named cue.' This clearly distinguishes it from generic control-panel or cue-creation tools by emphasizing the grid-of-buttons scene-switching behavior.

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?

It gives clear usage context ('for fast hands-on scene switching during a live set') and a prerequisite ('Store the cues with manage_cue / create_control_panel first'). It does not explicitly list alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context and dependency make the intended use clear.

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