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

Annotations already mark this as non-read and destructive; the description adds complementary context by stating the replacement is full-scene, that live previews observe the change, and that API-key auth and ownership apply. No contradiction with the destructiveHint.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences, each carrying distinct information: core operation, iteration purpose, and constraints (live preview, API key, ownership). No filler or redundancy.

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 destructive update tool with four params and no output schema, the description supplies the essential operational context: full replacement, validation, live preview side-effects, auth, and ownership. The schema covers parameter details and get_scene_format covers scene shape.

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 baseline is 3, but 'full scene JSON, validated first' clarifies that scene is a whole replacement rather than a patch, and 'own scenes only' reinforces the scene_id ownership. This adds meaning beyond the field descriptions.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Replace the content of one of your scenes.' It also signals the edit-loop nature ('iterating instead of duplicating'), which distinguishes it from create_scene and other siblings without needing their 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?

It clearly contextualizes use: iterating on an existing scene instead of duplicating, and limits to own scenes. It implies validation before replacing and live-preview consequences, though it does not explicitly name validate_scene or get_scene in this definition.

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