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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing the actual side effect: activating deactivates the previous scene (the real meaning of destructiveHint). It also describes the streaming/autoSynch interaction and names the 'synced' response field, which annotations cannot express.

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 action, then layers the exclusivity rule, idempotency, streaming behavior and id source in compact sentences. Every sentence carries distinct information with no padding.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the mutation's effect, its safety profile, the dependent state (streaming/autoSynch) and the response field. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both parameters including their id origins. The description restates that scene ids come from livereacting_get_scenes but adds no syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('make one scene the active scene') and immediately defines the on-air effect, which separates it from the many read/list siblings. The exactly-one-active semantics make the tool's scope unmistakable.

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?

Explains the condition for use (putting a scene's content on air) and notes idempotency, so an agent knows repeat calls are harmless. It does not point to a sibling alternative (e.g. livereacting_manage_scene), leaving a small gap in when-not guidance.

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