extend_segment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without revealing consequences. It doesn't disclose whether extending the timer affects OBS, whether it requires the show to be running, what the maximum total segment length is, or how the change impacts downstream segments. For a mutation-like timer operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single sentence with zero wasted words. Perfectly sized for a simple tool with one parameter. No redundancy, no padding.

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 1-parameter tool, the description covers the basic action, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral guidance, the overall picture is incomplete. The agent lacks information about prerequisites (is a show active?), side effects, and what success looks like. Given the surrounding show-management siblings, more context would meaningfully improve the description.

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% with the single 'minutes' parameter fully documented ('Minutes to extend (1-120)'). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies. The boundary (1-120) is useful but comes from the schema, not the description.

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 'Extend the current segment's timer' uses a specific verb ('extend') and resource ('current segment's timer'), making the core purpose clear. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling 'switch_segment' tool, and could be more explicit about what 'extending a timer' means operationally. It's adequate but minimal.

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 description implies usage context (extending the current segment's timer), but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. Among siblings, it's reasonably distinguishable from switch_segment (switching vs. extending), but no guidance is given about when one should be preferred over the other. The context of show timing is implicitly clear from siblings like start_show/end_show.

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