Live Transition

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses that the new deck goes on air at the start, that the old deck stops and goes off air on the boundary for `cut`, and that stop_from leaves the old deck cued for the next live_load. It omits failure behavior when the `to` deck is not playing despite the stated requirement, which is the main gap.

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?

Nothing is filler, but it is delivered as a dense run-on paragraph where the style enumeration is wedged into a parenthetical pipe list mid-sentence, which hurts scanability. Front-loading is good, structure is not.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers nearly everything needed to invoke it correctly, and an output schema exists so the return timeline needn't be detailed (though it is mentioned anyway). Missing error paths for an unprepared `to` deck and the `project` parameter keep it from being complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: `style` gets four fully explained modes despite the schema giving only a bare string, `at` is defined as a phrase boundary, `bars` is flagged as ignored under cut, `from_deck` is given a default rule, and `stop_from` is behaviorally explained. Only `project` is left entirely unexplained.

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 opening clause gives a specific verb and resource — queue a mix from one deck to another as ramps on their strips — and immediately ties it to the surrounding live_* ecosystem (live_load, live_queue, live_stop behavior). An agent can tell this apart from live_queue or live_load without opening the schema.

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?

It states the key precondition explicitly: the `to` deck must already be playing and cued via live_load or live_queue. The four style modes are each described with the condition that distinguishes them (e.g. cut ignores `bars`). It does not name when to prefer a sibling tool instead, but the prerequisite routing is clear.

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