Stage Cue Remove

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does a fair job: it discloses the return payload ('{removed}', a count), that a missing cue yields 0 rather than an error, and that nothing is emitted. It omits permissions/authorization and any effect on an in-progress cue.

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 action and its target are front-loaded, and the parenthetical plumbing notes are compact. Slightly dense with implementation detail ('page command: cue_remove'), but no sentence is truly wasted.

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 the return-value explanation is a bonus rather than a necessity, and the no-error-on-missing-cue note is valuable. However, for a two-parameter mutation with zero schema documentation, the silent treatment of `scene` leaves the definition incomplete.

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 it only partly does. It clarifies that 'cue' is an id and confusingly notes the page also reads `name`, but the required `scene` parameter is never mentioned at all, leaving half the inputs undocumented in both places.

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 specific verb and resource ('Remove a waiting cue by id'), which clearly separates it from stage_cue_set, stage_cues_clear and stage_cues_list. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the name pair rather than spelled out.

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 'by id' phrasing implies single-cue removal versus the bulk stage_cues_clear, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no prerequisites (e.g. whether the cue must exist in the current scene) are stated.

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