Create a scene

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

The description adds meaningfully to the annotations: annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description explains the off-air vs. immediate activation behavior, that it returns a scene_id, and suggests populating before activating. This goes beyond the structured fields, even if it doesn't cover edge cases like duplicate names or failure behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every clause adds value: the first sentence states the verb and object; the second explains the activate option, the workflow, and the return value. Highly efficient.

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 simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers creation, activation behavior, return value usage, and the recommended next step (add_source). It even references sibling tools to guide the overall workflow. Complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly without further context.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics for the activate parameter by explaining its timing and conditional use ('call only when...'), which enriches the schema's 'Switch the live output now' without being redundant. The name parameter is straightforward, so the added value is moderate.

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 clear action: 'Create a new empty scene.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like activate_scene (switch to an existing scene) and get_scenes (list) by specifying it creates a new scene, and by referencing activate_scene for later activation. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 explicitly states when to use activate:true ('call only when the user wants to build/switch to it now') and when not to ('otherwise it's created off-air... then activate_scene when ready'). It also names the alternative tool (activate_scene) and provides a clear workflow, satisfying the 'when-to-use vs alternatives' criteria.

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