fire_clip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states a simple action ('Start playing') without revealing side effects such as whether transport starts, whether other clips are stopped, or any quantization behavior. This is insufficient for a state-mutating tool.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Start playing a clip (launches the clip slot).' Every word contributes to the meaning, with no redundancy or filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple tool.

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?

Despite being a simple operation, the description is incomplete for an agent to use correctly. It lacks parameter semantics, usage guidance, and behavioral details (e.g., prerequisites or side effects). The existence of an output schema does not compensate for the under-specified input and 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?

The input schema provides two integer indices (clip_index, track_index) with zero description coverage. The description does not explain how these indices relate (e.g., that track_index identifies the track and clip_index identifies the clip within it) or any constraints like zero-based indexing. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's field titles.

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 the tool's function: 'Start playing a clip' and clarifies 'launches the clip slot'. This specific verb+resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like start_playback (which starts global transport) and stop_clip (which stops a clip). The phrase 'clip slot' implies a targeted action on a specific clip.

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 for a specific clip slot but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like start_playback or stop_clip. It lacks exclusions or references to sibling tools, so the agent must infer from context rather than receive direct guidance.

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