launch

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

Annotations declare non-destructive and read-only false; the description adds important context that launching does not change the Set's content, and explains quantized stop behavior and self-ending recordings. It does not cover error or auth conditions, but it adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations.

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?

Dense but front-loaded with the core action, then follows with address types and options. It could be better structured with lists, but every sentence earns its place for a complex domain.

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?

Given no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers all address types, actions, applicable options, and key caveats needed to call the tool correctly. No significant gaps remain for a Session-view launcher.

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%, but the description adds substantial meaning: address format variants, action default, legato scope, select for scenes, quantized for stops, quantization slots, and record_length for empty slots. This materially enriches how each parameter should be understood and used.

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 action (fire or stop) on Session view targets and enumerates the address forms, distinguishing from transport for arrangement clips. An agent can identify intent and scope without opening the schema.

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 notes arrangement clips cannot be launched and directs to transport, and explains how each address type behaves. It lacks explicit when-not guidance versus other session-action siblings like clip_action, but the context is otherwise clear.

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