Create setlist runner

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

The description discloses the full construction behavior: builds a baseCOMP with N Select TOPs, Switch/Cross TOPs for crossfades, optional HUD, Timer CHOP + CHOP Execute auto-advance engine, and live custom params. It also states the output path (Null TOP at `<parent>/<name>/out`). This is far beyond what annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, destructiveHint false) communicate, and there is no contradiction.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences capture the tool's purpose, construction details, output, and positioning relative to siblings. Every clause earns its place, and the description is structured logically from what it does, to how it does it, to where the output lands, to when to use it.

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 (8 parameters, nested rows, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the generated node graph, the auto-advance timeline behavior, the HUD option, the custom stage override params, and the exact output path. It also situates the tool among related siblings, leaving little ambiguity about its capabilities or intended use.

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% and each parameter already has a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds contextual meaning by explaining that rows drive the construction ("Pass rows[]... builds a baseCOMP") and mentions the custom params for stage overrides, but it does not add syntax or relationship details 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 leads with a specific verb+resource: "Layer-1 wall-clock setlist player for rehearsed VJ shows," and then details the exact components built (Select TOPs, Switch TOP, Cross TOP, HUD, Timer CHOP engine). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools, create_clip_launcher and create_cue_sequencer, by positioning itself as the wall-clock gap-filler.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use context: "For rehearsed VJ shows" and "Fills the gap between create_clip_launcher (manual grid) and create_cue_sequencer (musical bars)." This clearly names the alternatives and explains the specific niche, giving the agent direct guidance on tool selection.

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