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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description usefully explains what 'destructive' means here — screens return to their own content — but doesn't say what happens to the ended scene's layout/content, whether it can be reactivated, or what state screens were in before.

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?

One compact sentence with the effect front-loaded and no filler. Brevity tips into under-specification rather than excess.

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?

No output schema exists, so return behavior needn't be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still missing: what happens to the scene resource itself, whether activation is a prerequisite, and any pointer to the scene_id source — gaps that matter for a destructive mutation.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions scene_id, its UUID format, or where to obtain one (presumably from list_scenes). With a single undocumented parameter, the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 (end a scene) and its visible effect (its screens revert to their own content), which implicitly contrasts with activate_scene and release_all. It doesn't name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus release_all or release_screen, and no preconditions (e.g., must the scene be active first?). The agent must guess from the name alone.

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