Stage Clock Set

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral load and does it well: it discloses that playing loops at the end, that t is clamped to the span, that the page replies {t, playing, rate, span}, and that a 'clock' event is emitted when t is supplied. These are non-obvious operational traits an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the verb+resource leads, then parameter semantics, then reply/event behavior. The aside about the clock.js header naming seek/rate/span is implementation trivia that costs a clause without helping the caller, a minor inefficiency.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be restated, yet the description still gives the reply shape and event emission for free. Combined with near-complete parameter coverage, only the missing 'scene' semantics keeps this from being fully self-sufficient.

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, and it documents t (seek target, clamped), rate (speed), span ([t0,t1] in seconds), and the semantics of action — four of five parameters. The required 'scene' parameter is left completely undocumented, which is the one substantive 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 verb+resource — driving the scene's stage clock — and anchors it to a page command (clock), so the agent knows exactly what subsystem is being manipulated. It is clearly distinct from other stage_* siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with any of them.

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 clarifies the internal usage rule that only action: play|pause actually act, while seek/rate/span are expressed as fields — useful guidance for correct invocation. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus a related sibling (e.g. stage_music_time, stage_timeline_show), so the choice context is only implied.

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