Set cue timing

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so: one Set() per field, additive (only given fields change), fail-closed behavior (nothing sent when the part is missing), no command-line command emitted, selection and programmer untouched, read-back verification, and fixture values neither touched nor verified. It even discloses the mutation lock's limit — it orders only this server's mutations and does not guard against other console 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?

Dense but front-loaded: the mutation model, the field mapping, and the refusal behavior come first, and the caveats about selection, verification, and the mutation lock follow. The parenthetical property names duplicate the schema, so a small amount of text is redundant, but 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?

For an 11-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what changes, what does not, failure behavior, concurrency limits, and that results are read back. It stops short of describing what the verification report actually contains, but the 'reported separately from the mutation steps' note gives the agent enough to interpret the result.

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 all 11 parameters are already documented, including units, '0 is a value', and the default part 0. The description largely restates the same field-to-property mapping the schema provides, adding little semantic detail beyond it; baseline 3 applies.

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: edit the timing of an existing cue part, with an explicit field-to-property mapping (fade=CueInFade, delay=CueInDelay, out_fade/out_delay/snap_delay). Scope is narrowed effectively by 'only the given fields are changed.' It never names a sibling such as gma3_set_cue_trigger, so the differentiation is by scope rather than by explicit routing.

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 context is implied: use it on an existing cue part to change timing fields, with default part 0. The refusal condition (part does not exist) tells the agent a precondition, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to gma3_set_cue_trigger or gma3_store_cue_part as alternatives.

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