Stage Take Stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well to disclose the frame flush, the return payload shape, the no-op reply, and the emitted events (take_stop, then take_audio from the server). However it says nothing about permissions, whether the flushed take is persisted or discarded, or what 'scene' scopes the operation to, leaving meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return contract, then the event sequence. Every clause carries information an agent needs; there is no filler.

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 detailed return payload explanation is bonus rather than necessary, and the event emission chain is a valuable addition. Still, a required, undocumented 'scene' parameter and no guidance on alternatives leave the definition incomplete for an agent that must decide what to pass and when to prefer this over stage_stop.

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% and there is one required parameter ('scene') that the description never mentions at all. The description neither explains what the scene value is (an id? a name?) nor whether it must match the active take's scene, so it fails to compensate for the schema 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Stop the take being recorded') and adds the underlying page command (take_stop), which pins down exactly which operation this is. It is distinguishable from stage_take_start and stage_take_replay_stop by the word 'take', though it never explicitly contrasts itself with stage_stop or stage_actor_stop.

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?

Usage is only implied: the '{stopped: false} when none was running' clause tells the agent it is safe to call when unsure a take exists, which is genuinely useful context. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative stop tools (stage_stop, live_stop, stage_actor_stop) that an agent could confuse it with.

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