clyphx_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It does not explicitly mention the potential for destructive actions, rate limits, or other behavioral traits beyond sending a raw string. However, the list of common actions implies various behaviors (e.g., creating tracks, muting). More explicit disclosure would improve transparency.

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 well-structured: first sentence introduces purpose, then use case, then parameter details with examples, then a list of common actions. Every sentence is informative and earns its place without redundancy.

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 raw action tool with high complexity, the description covers parameter format, usage scenarios, and common actions. It also distinguishes from siblings. Output schema exists but is not needed given the nature of the tool. The description is complete for its 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description extensively documents the 'action_string' parameter: format (e.g., '1/LOADDEV "Auto Filter"'), chaining with semicolons, and a detailed list of common actions. This adds immense meaning beyond the schema.

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 this is for sending raw ClyphX Pro action strings for commands not covered by specific sibling tools, with a specific verb 'Send' and resource 'ClyphX Pro action string'. It distinguishes itself by referencing 'not covered by the specific ClyphX tools below'.

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?

Explicitly says to use this for any ClyphX command not covered by specific tools, providing common action examples and chaining format using semicolons, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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