Live Transition

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: the new deck goes on air at the start, the mix runs as ramps on the strips from a phrase boundary, stop_from halts the old deck's tracks at the end, and the response is a per-move timeline. Gaps remain on error handling when the deck isn't playing and on reversibility/cancellation.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence adds information. The inline pipe-delimited style list is dense and somewhat hard to scan, but there is little waste overall.

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 an output schema exists, the description needn't explain return values (though it briefly does). For a 7-parameter mutation with no annotations, it covers most of what an agent needs, leaving only `bars`/`project` semantics and failure behavior unspecified.

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: it fully explains the `style` enum values, `at` as a phrase boundary, `to`'s playing requirement, `from_deck`'s default, and `stop_from`'s effect. It leaves `bars` (transition length) and `project` unexplained, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

States a concrete verb (queue a mix / transition) and resource (from one deck to another), plus the phrase-boundary timing. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly naming the prerequisite flow (live_load / live_queue) and the on-air behavior.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (the `to` deck must already be playing, loaded/queued and cued) and names the tools to use first. It does not however state when NOT to use this versus alternatives like live_start, live_stop, or live_cancel.

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