activate_scene

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description's job is to add context — which it does: 'without saving' tells the agent the resulting change is transient and not persisted, and the two-state note explains that a call applies the current state rather than toggling. It does not explain what state gets overwritten on the blocks or what happens if no rig is loaded, which is why this is not a 5.

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 short sentences: the imperative action and scope first, then the one nuance that changes caller behavior (no alternation on two-state scenes). Nothing is redundant, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 described, and with a single required parameter the description covers the action, the parameter domain, the persistence semantics and the two-state nuance. The only untold piece — preconditions around a loaded rig — is minor for a tool this simple.

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% — the lone 'switch' parameter is a bare integer with no title-level detail, no range and no enum. The description compensates by supplying the valid domain ('footswitch 1-6'), which is exactly the missing constraint an agent needs; it does not state what happens for out-of-range values.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource ('Fire the scene on footswitch 1-6 of the loaded rig') and scopes it with 'without saving', so an agent can tell this apart from set_scene or get_scene. It stops short of naming any sibling tool explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool triggers a scene in the currently loaded rig, and the second paragraph clarifies it applies the current state instead of alternating. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' routing to set_scene, save_loaded_rig, or get_scene, and no mention of a prerequisite such as a rig already being loaded.

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