end_show

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that ending can optionally play an ending sequence and stop streaming/recording, and the schema adds safety permission requirements. However, it doesn't disclose whether ending is reversible, whether it affects the current show state irreversibly, or any behavioral side effects beyond what's named.

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?

One clear sentence stating the primary action plus optional behaviors. Zero wasted words, front-loaded with the core purpose. Very efficient for the information conveyed.

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 simple tool with one optional nested options object and no output schema, the description covers the main action and optional variants. However, with no annotations and zero schema coverage in the description, it could benefit from noting what happens to the show state after ending (is it resumable? completely terminated?) and whether any prerequisite state is required (must a show be active?).

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%, so the description must compensate. However, the description itself names the optional behaviors (play ending, stop streaming/recording) which maps to the options object. The description doesn't explain the options structure nesting, but the schema does document the three boolean fields well. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema here, so baseline 3 is fair.

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 clearly states 'End the current show' with a specific verb (end) and resource (show), and adds the optional behaviors of playing an ending sequence and stopping streaming/recording. It distinguishes from siblings like start_show and switch_segment clearly. Slightly lacking in that it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It doesn't mention that stopping streaming/recording requires safety permission (though the schema does note this for those options) or when one might want to end without playing the ending sequence. No alternative tool references provided.

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