fire_scene

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world, but the description adds two genuinely useful behaviors: the transport auto-starts if stopped, and the action is explicitly not an undo step - the latter directly tells the agent that undo_last cannot revert it. It stops short of describing what happens to clips that are already playing.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the action, then the definition of 'scene', then transport behavior and the undo caveat. No filler and nothing buried.

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 one-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral surprises (transport start, non-undoable). The remaining gap is the semantics of the scene identifier, which is the only thing an agent still has to guess.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning about what the 'scene' value is (index base, valid range, or whether it corresponds to the position shown in the Live UI). The agent must infer the format of the only argument.

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 ('Launch') and resource ('every clip in this scene') and clarifies what a scene is ('one song section'). The 'every clip' phrasing implicitly distinguishes it from the single-clip sibling play_clip, though it does not name that 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?

Usage is implied: this is the bulk-launch action for a whole scene, in contrast to play_clip's single clip. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over play_clip or over transport controls, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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