screenstudio_editor_play

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds that this drives real-time human viewing, but omits whether playback blocks until completion, whether it requires an open editor, and how range bounds behave beyond defaults. readOnlyHint=false is consistent with playback altering editor state, so no contradiction.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb leading and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.

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 playback action with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It does not explain blocking behavior, whether an editor must be open, or the range semantics an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% for all three parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only implies a range exists (mapping loosely to fromMs/toMs) and says nothing about units, format, defaults, or what projectPath identifies, leaving the parameters materially under-specified.

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 and resource ('Play a range in the editor window'), and clarifies intent with 'so the person can watch it'. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings like screenstudio_editor_seek or screenstudio_editor_view, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as screenstudio_editor_seek, editor_view, or editor_frame. The phrase 'so the person can watch it' implies real-time playback but gives no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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