remove_scene_second_state

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond them: the change is made in memory only ("without saving"), meaning the destructive effect is not persisted until a separate save. It does not state what happens when no second state exists, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no padding, so compression is good. The wording is front-loaded but awkward ('one state on the scene on footswitch 1-6'), stacking two prepositional phrases in a way that costs clarity rather than saving it.

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 one parameter, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the definition does not need to explain return values. Still, for a destructive, non-persisted mutation it omits prerequisites, the no-op case, and the required follow-up save, leaving the agent with a partially adequate picture.

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 0% for the single 'switch' parameter, so the burden is on the description. It does compensate partially by stating the footswitch is 1-6, implying the valid range for 'switch', but it never explicitly ties the parameter to that number, nor does it cover out-of-range behavior.

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 names the resource (the scene's second state on a footswitch) and the effect (reverting to a single state), which separates it roughly from activate_scene and set_scene. However, the phrasing "Go back to one state on the scene" is ambiguous about whether a stored assignment is deleted or the scene is merely switched, so an agent cannot fully distinguish intent from siblings like set_footswitch.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative; it does not say to use set_footswitch to create a second state or save_loaded_rig to persist the result. The only implicit cue is "without saving," which hints at a follow-up save step but never states it.

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