trigger_studio_mode_transition

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It states that the tool 'Cuts Preview to Program,' which is a meaningful behavioral outcome. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., studio mode must be enabled) or failure modes, but the studio mode reference partially implies this context.

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 two concise sentences, immediately front-loaded with the action and then enriched by the 'same as clicking' analogy and the effect. Every word earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 parameterless action with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, how it behaves, and the context (studio mode). The analogy to the Transition button makes the usage unambiguous, and the effect is clearly stated, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds no parameter information, but per the rubric, a zero-parameter tool receives a baseline score of 4, which is appropriate here.

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 ('Trigger') and resource ('the current transition'), immediately clarifying the action. It distinguishes from siblings like set_current_scene_transition and get_studio_mode_enabled by referencing the studio mode Transition button and the effect ('Cuts Preview to Program').

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 provides clear context by likening the tool to clicking the Transition button in studio mode, which implies when it should be used. It doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives, but the analogy effectively communicates the intended use case among a crowded set of transition-related tools.

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