switch_segment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does but not what happens during the transition (whether the current segment stops, what state changes occur, whether it requires the show to be live). Not a destructive/read operation context is conveyed. Transition effects are mentioned only in params, not behavior.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words or filler. It's appropriately minimal for its purpose, though very brief. No redundancy or fluff.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and nested parameters, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain return behavior, error conditions (e.g., invalid segment_id), or whether a show must be active. Given the complexity (nested options, show state implications), the description should provide more operational context.

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 50% — the segment_id parameter is described ('ID of the segment to switch to') but the options object is in a nested structure. The description tells us nothing about the 'options' object or its sub-parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies since half the parameters are documented in schema; description adds no extra semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Switch to a different segment of the show'), which clearly states the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings like start_show/end_show since it targets a specific segment rather than show lifecycle, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling extend_segment. Clear enough for basic understanding.

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 like extend_segment or set_scene. There's no mention of when segment switching is appropriate, prerequisites (e.g., show must be running), or exclusions. The description provides no decision guidance for the agent.

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