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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description goes well beyond them: permanent removal of the scene and all non-pinned layers including playlists, no undo, auto-switch links being silently cleared with a 24/7 chain warning, the response listing changed layers, and the active-scene reassignment rule. This is exactly the context annotations cannot carry.

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-loaded with the verb+resource and organized per action value. Dense but nearly every sentence carries non-obvious operational consequence (no undo, link clearing, active-scene fallback); marginally long but not padded.

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, and the description compensates by telling the agent the response lists layers whose auto-switch links were changed. Combined with the delete side-effect disclosures and the create/update scope limits, an agent has everything needed to call this safely.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning per action value: "update" renames and changes nothing else, "delete" removes layers for good, "create" yields an empty scene. It does not elaborate on setActive behavior beyond the schema's own note.

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 specific verbs (create, rename, delete) and resource (scene), and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling livereacting_create_scene_with_playlist by explaining that create adds an *empty* scene. An agent can disambiguate from activate_scene, add_layer, etc. without opening schemas.

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 routes the agent: use this for empty scenes, prefer livereacting_create_scene_with_playlist when the scene is meant to play video. Also states when NOT to delete (last remaining scene) and instructs to confirm with the customer before deleting.

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