Goto a cue (playback)

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: it discloses that output changes live, the crossfade is asynchronous and completion is unverified, nonexistent cues are rejected before anything is sent, selection/programmer are untouched, and verification requires bridge 0.32.0. It even scopes the mutation lock's guarantee honestly by noting it does not isolate from other operators or clients.

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 critical fact ('PLAYBACK MUTATION') is front-loaded and the sentences are information-dense. The clause 'Goto is a playback mutation' is a redundant restatement of the opening label, a small waste in an otherwise tight definition.

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 six-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers refusal conditions, async timing, verification method, and concurrency caveats well. It stops short of characterizing the returned payload beyond the verification status, which is the one remaining gap for an output-schema-less tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, but the description adds value by tying them to console syntax ('Goto Sequence n Cue c [Fade s]'), clarifying the fade override intent, and explaining that the current cue is read back a frame later for verification. The verify and sequence-resolution semantics are largely echoed from the schema, which keeps it from a 5.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('sends `Goto Sequence n Cue c [Fade s]`, which jumps the sequence to that cue and changes live output'), so the agent knows exactly what console action results. It is clearly separable from siblings such as gma3_store_cue or gma3_set_cue_timing because it emphasizes this is playback, not editing.

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 context for use is explicit: it is a playback mutation that changes live output, and it refuses with nothing sent when the cue does not exist. It also rules out adjacent behavior ('Does not change the selection or the programmer'), though it never names an alternative sibling (e.g. gma3_playback or gma3_command) or states when to prefer those.

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