fire_clip

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the side effect ('launches playback in one undo-scoped command') and failure behavior ('empty or invalid slots are rejected'). It omits launch quantization/queuing semantics, but the safety-relevant behavior is covered.

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?

Four short labeled lines (purpose, side effect, example, edge cases) with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence contributes something the agent cannot get from the schema.

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?

No output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description supplies purpose, side effect, example and failure modes for a simple two-parameter mutation. Adequate for this complexity level, with room only for launch-timing detail.

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 both params are bare integers, but the example 'fire_clip(0, 1) launches slot one on track zero' disambiguates argument order (track_index first, clip_index second) plus the numbering, which is the key ambiguity an agent would otherwise face.

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+resource: 'Fire an existing Session clip through its clip slot.' This is enough to tell it apart from get_clip_info and fire_scene (a clip vs a scene), though it never names the nearest sibling explicitly.

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?

'Fire an existing Session clip' implies the launch use case and the precondition that the clip must exist, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives such as fire_scene or start_playback. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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