switch_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'switch' without explaining side effects, error behavior if the scene name is invalid, whether the current scene is saved, or whether the active context is changed globally. This is thin for a state-changing tool.

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 description is short and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact parameter explanation. It contains no fluff, though the Args section could be integrated more naturally and offers only a bare restatement of the parameter.

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 tool with a single simple parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it names the resource and the parameter. However, it omits practical details such as the requirement that the scene already exist, how the current scene is affected, and what happens if the name is invalid. No annotations compensate for these gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for the bare schema. It states that scene_name is the name of the scene to switch to, which clarifies the parameter's role beyond the schema title 'Scene Name'. However, it adds minimal extra value—no format, validity constraints, or relationship to existing scenes—so it just meets the minimum.

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 and resource: switching to a different scene within the current .blend file. This clearly identifies the tool's action and is distinct from obvious siblings like new_scene, create_scene, and delete_scene, though it does not explicitly call out those alternatives.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_open_scenes, get_scene_info, or new_scene. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that the target scene must already exist) or when not to use it.

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