polynodes_play_stop

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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it sends an OSC message and returns a JSON confirmation, which is useful context beyond 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?

Short and front-loaded with the purpose; the Args and Returns sections are compact. Slight redundancy with the schema but nothing wasteful.

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 single-parameter playback toggle with annotations covering idempotency and safety, the description is adequate. The output schema exists so return-value detail isn't strictly needed, though it mentions the confirmation anyway.

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 carry the burden, and it does: it explains state=1.0 plays and state=0.0 stops, giving the only meaningful semantics for the single required parameter.

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 a specific verb and resource: start or stop PolyNodes playback. It's clearly distinguishable from siblings like polynodes_set_gain or polynodes_set_bpm, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied through the state values (1.0 to play, 0.0 to stop), which conveys how to invoke it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over related transport or playback tools.

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