scene_update

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the exclusive mode behavior ('captures ALL lights (on lights with settings, off lights as 'off')'), which clarifies how the tool handles light states beyond what the schema's enum description provides. However, it doesn't mention permissions, rate limits, or error conditions.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first states purpose, second gives critical usage rule, third explains exclusive mode nuance. Each sentence earns its place by adding distinct value, and the most important guidance 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by providing clear purpose, strong usage rules, and behavioral context about exclusive mode. However, it doesn't explain what the tool returns or potential side effects beyond the mode explanation, leaving some gaps for a write operation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context about exclusive mode behavior ('captures ALL lights') that complements the schema's enum description, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or examples beyond what's already documented in the schema properties.

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 verb ('update') and resource ('existing scene') with specific scope ('with current light states'). It distinguishes from siblings like scene_create (create new), scene_activate (activate), and scene_adjust_light (adjust individual lights) by focusing on saving current states to an existing scene.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'ONLY call this when user EXPLICITLY asks to save/update a scene. Do NOT call automatically after adjusting lights.' This clearly defines when to use (explicit user request) and when not to use (automatic updates), helping distinguish from scene_adjust_light for temporary adjustments.

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