Editar Escena

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly labels the operation as destructive ('EDITA (destructiva)'), states that it replaces the content of one scene, and clearly explains the guardrails: preview=true does not write, and writing requires preview=false + confirmar=true. This is strong, useful behavioral disclosure 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 compact, front-loaded with the critical destructive warning, and every clause contributes meaning. The safety conditions are stated in a tight, readable way without filler.

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?

The description captures the core purpose and safety model, but it leaves some context implicit: it does not clarify how this differs from escribir_guion beyond 'UNA escena', and it does not explain the 'serie' or 'proyecto' parameters. Since schema coverage is 0%, those implicit details create a meaningful gap, though the output schema may partially compensate.

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 supply parameter meaning. It does clarify 'numero' (scene number), 'texto_fountain' (replacement content), and the preview/confirmar behavior. However, 'serie' and 'proyecto' are not explained at all, leaving important parameters under-specified for an agent.

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 uses a specific verb ('reemplaza'), names the exact resource (one scene), and defines the selection method (by number). It clearly differentiates this from read-only siblings like leer_guion and, by the phrase 'UNA escena', from a whole-script operation like escribir_guion.

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?

The description provides clear operational guidance: use preview=true for a dry run and set preview=false + confirmar=true to actually write. It also references escribir_guion as a sibling with the same safety model. It does not explicitly state when to choose editar_escena over escribir_guion, but the single-scene framing gives adequate context.

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