Fire Deck

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the name by explaining the timing behavior of both quantize modes: 'next_bar' waits via telemetry, while 'global' fires immediately and lets Live align it. This is meaningful non-obvious behavior, though it doesn't mention potential side effects on currently playing clips.

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 sentences, no filler. Purpose is front-loaded, and the quantize behavior is explained compactly. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description is adequate for the core firing action and quantize modes, and an output schema exists to cover return values. However, 'clip_index' semantics are missing and there is no explicit guidance on how deck identifiers relate to siblings like 'deck_status' or 'setup_decks', leaving moderate gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only explains 'quantize' values; 'deck' is only indirectly implied as the target, and 'clip_index' is entirely unexplained. An agent would not know from the description how to select a specific clip on a deck.

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 and resource: 'Fire a deck's clip.' This clearly identifies the action and target, distinguishing it from global transport siblings like 'play' and 'stop_deck'. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative or state what it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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 contextual guidance for the 'quantize' parameter by contrasting 'next_bar' (waits for downbeat) with 'global' (fires immediately). However, it does not state when to choose this tool over siblings like 'play', 'load_to_deck', or 'stop_deck', leaving tool-selection guidance implicit.

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