Live Device

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses a ~1-second gap during the switch, the fallback behavior when a device stops taking audio, and the automatic following of the system default with a 'follow' parameter. It does not cover authentication or rate limits, but these are likely irrelevant for a local audio tool.

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, dense paragraph front-loaded with the primary function and followed by parameter details. Some sentences are long and could be broken up, but overall it is efficient and avoids 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 that an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values. It provides a thorough behavioral picture for a 3-parameter tool with no annotations, covering device semantics, follow behavior, and fallback. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit when-to-use vs siblings, but that overlaps with usage guidelines.

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. It explains the 'device' parameter in detail (valid values: 'default', a name or part of one, an index, or 'none'), and touches on 'follow' via 'follow=False stops that'. The 'project' parameter is implied but not described, leaving a small gap.

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 action: 'Move a running set to another audio output without stopping it.' This clear verb+resource is further elaborated with the effect on the timeline, queue, and audio mixing. While it doesn't name a specific sibling tool, the function is unambiguous and distinct from other live_* tools that start, stop, or manage tracks.

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 implies when to use the tool—while a set is running—and gives a hint for 'default' (after connecting a Bluetooth speaker). However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like live_start or live_stop, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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