Stage Take Loop

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details crucial behavioral traits like the cross-fade duration (tuned with the user), the nature of the resulting take (silent, no performance link, plays with `stage_actor_play`), and the definition of `blend=0`.

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 dense and technical, but every sentence serves a critical function, either defining the core action or explaining a technical constraint (like the continuous nature of the loop or the nature of the resulting object). It is highly information-efficient.

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?

It is extremely complete. It explains the outcome (a new, distinct file with specific playback properties), how that file is created (the cross-fade mechanism), and how to define the input window, providing a full context for the action.

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?

Because schema coverage is 0%, the description is invaluable. It clarifies the semantic difference between defining a window using raw time versus musical bars, and it defines the functional effect of the `blend` parameter (a plain window vs. a cross-fade).

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 immediately defines a highly specific function: cutting a take into a silent, continuous looping window. It clearly distinguishes itself from other processing or viewing tools by focusing on the cross-fading and looping mechanism.

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 provides explicit usage paths by offering two methods for defining the window: by time coordinates (start/end) or by musical structure (bpm/bars). It also hints at using `stage_take_sync` for structural selections.

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