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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose the key trait: this tool mutates state, but side effects are gated behind an explicit confirmSideEffect flag and dryRun defaults to safe preview. It does not cover reversibility, permissions, or error behavior, but the critical side-effect contract is stated.

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?

The purpose is front-loaded, followed by terse bullet points covering the prerequisite, the default mode, and the real-execution conditions. No sentence is redundant and the structure is scannable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the prerequisite workflow and the side-effect safety contract, leaving only minor gaps like permission requirements.

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 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining the interaction between dryRun and confirmSideEffect (both must be set for real execution). It does not expand on the reason parameter, but the safety-critical semantics are clarified beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb+resource (execute a scene/scenario/mode) and adds a scoping detail that the ID must be resolved first. It implicitly differentiates from the sibling get_scenes (which supplies the ID) but does not name it explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear context: acquire the scene ID before executing, and clarifies that dryRun defaults to true (plan only) while real execution requires explicit dryRun=false and confirmSideEffect=true. It does not name the exact sibling tool for ID lookup, leaving that inference to the agent, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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