Stage Test Take

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the countdown delay after the spoken line, the 'Go.' caption being shown rather than spoken into the take, the 120-second cap, the naming convention test_<name>, the meta.json kind/labeling, and the zero-frame failure mode. Those are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent could not guess.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then flows through the sequence of events in order, which matches how the agent must reason about the call. It is dense but nearly every clause carries behavioral information; the embedded user quotation is the one element that adds color rather than actionable detail.

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?

For a complex async VR recording flow with no annotations and 7 undocumented parameters, the description supplies the timing model, naming/labeling contract, precondition, failure mode, and downstream reuse path. An output schema exists so return-value detail is not needed, and the one-sentence mention of the reply shape is a bonus rather than a gap.

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% across 7 parameters, yet the description explains nearly all of them: voice controls whether the ask is spoken, sender is the speaking identity, seconds is the record length with a 120 cap, countdown is the post-line wait, ask should be one actionable instruction with an example, and name feeds the take label and later stage_takes query. Only 'scene' is left implicit, referenced solely through the stage_take_replay example rather than explained.

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: asks the person in VR to act something out and records a numbered take, with a clear 'test' framing that separates it from ordinary takes. It names the follow-on siblings stage_takes and stage_take_replay, but never explicitly contrasts with the plain stage_take_start, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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 concrete usage scenario (a test run in VR) and directs the agent to stage_take_replay for repeated offline review. It also flags that frames only sample while the page is in VR, which is a real precondition, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer stage_take_start over this tool.

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