Create phrase-locked cue engine

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does so richly: FIFO queueing, firing on phrase boundaries, live controls (Active, PhraseLength, Flush, QueueDepth), mode semantics, and the exact output path (0/1 trigger Null CHOP at <container>/out). No contradictions with 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?

The description is only four sentences but packs a comprehensive overview: what it does, input sources, queue behavior, live controls, mode options, integration points, and output. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 complexity (7 params, no output schema, rich integration context), the description is highly complete. It explains the input trigger types, the queue and firing mechanism, the live controls, mode differences, upstream/downstream pairs, and the output path. Combined with the detailed schema, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, with each parameter already having detailed descriptions. The tool description adds context by explaining how parameters relate to the overall behavior (e.g., queue_capacity with FIFO, expose_controls with live controls), but this is complementary rather than essential. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 it 'Build a DJ/VJ phrase-quantized cue-lock engine' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing the FIFO queueing and phrase-boundary firing behavior, and even names upstream/downstream companion tools (create_tempo_sync, bind_to_channel, manage_cue), leaving no ambiguity about its specialized role.

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 clear context for when to use it: for phrase-quantized cue locking in DJ/VJ workflows. It explains the two modes ('next' vs 'aligned') to help users choose. It names integration points but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives (e.g., 'use this instead of create_beat_grid_sequencer'), so it falls short of a full 5.

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