Create scene timeline

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false. The description adds valuable context beyond those flags: it lists exposed custom pars (Play/Pause/Stop/Seek/Rate/Loop/Active_Scene) and the playhead Null CHOP outputs, explains setlist schema integration, and discloses the BPM 120 + 4 beats-per-bar conversion with no auto-rescale on tempo change. This provides meaningful behavioral expectations without repeating annotation data.

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 a single, information-dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose ('Build a scrubbable show timeline'), then covers hierarchy, exposed outputs, setlist integration, and a key conversion limitation. Every sentence contributes essential context with no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool's high complexity (show timeline with scenes, morphs, setlist integration) and lack of output schema, the description is quite complete: it discloses main behavior, sibling positioning, output pars/CHOP, and conversion behavior. It doesn't mention prerequisites like requiring `manage_cue` to store cues on target, though the schema references that dependency. Overall, the description covers the critical context needed for safe invocation.

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 coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds integrated context (e.g., bars→seconds conversion, setlist mirroring into tdmcp_scenes) but doesn't substantially augment per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Build a scrubbable show timeline') and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling tools ('Sits above create_cue_sequencer... and create_scheduler... as the show's master clock'). This clearly identifies what the tool does and sets it apart from related alternatives.

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 explicitly names sibling tools and places this tool in a hierarchy ('master clock'), indicating when it should be used instead of beat-quantized or event-firing sequencers. The phrase 'sits above' provides clear alternative guidance, though it doesn't include an explicit 'when not to use' statement.

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