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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description still adds value by spelling out what is displaced ("in place of what it shows"), the precondition that screens must be online with a paired player, and that results carry online/paired fields. That last point matters because there is no output schema.

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?

Front-loads the core effect in the first clause and adds two supporting sentences that each carry information (re-run semantics, readiness precondition, result fields). Slightly dense but no wasted sentences.

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?

Covers what the tool does, the fact that it replaces current content, the readiness requirement, and what the response indicates, which is important since no output schema exists. Complete enough to call correctly; only the relationship to release_scene is missing.

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?

There is a single required scene_id, and the schema already encodes its UUID pattern (^[0-9a-fA-F-]{36}$) even though description coverage is nominally 0%. The description adds no meaning about the identifier, so it neither compensates nor needs to do much for one well-constrained field.

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 concrete verb and resource with the actual effect: putting a scene live makes every screen and sub-screen in the scene switch at once. An agent can distinguish this from check_device or push_content, though it never names the obvious alternative release_scene, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.

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?

"Running it again puts changes to the scene live" usefully clarifies the repeat-call case, and the online/paired precondition gives context for when activation will actually take effect. However, it never says when to prefer this over release_scene or release_all, leaving the exclusion guidance implied.

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