Set stage properties

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update,' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose side effects, whether unspecified properties are preserved, any permission requirements, or validation constraints (e.g., valid ranges for tempo, volume, or transparency). This is a significant gap for a mutation 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that gets directly to the point. It efficiently lists the properties, which is easy to scan. However, its brevity comes at the cost of necessary detail, but that is penalized in other dimensions. For conciseness itself, it is well-structured and avoids verbosity.

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?

With 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must compensate fully. It fails to explain parameter meaning, any prerequisites (e.g., a project must be open), or the tool's effect on existing values. This makes the tool effectively unusable without external knowledge or trial and error.

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%, meaning the schema provides no textual explanations for parameters. The description lists the parameter names (tempo, video state/transparency, volume) but doesn't define their meaning, valid ranges, or the meaning of enum values like 'on-flipped'. This leaves an agent without necessary context to populate values correctly.

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 clearly states the action (update) and the resource (stage-level properties), and lists the specific properties covered: tempo, video state/transparency, volume. This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sprite-level or other tools, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives like set_sprite. It effectively conveys the tool's scope.

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 its siblings. The sibling list includes set_sprite, patch_target, and others that could overlap in functionality, but the description doesn't mention any decision rules, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.

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