Switch scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing side effects, potential failure modes (e.g., if the scene does not exist), or whether this switches the program (active) scene versus the preview scene in studio mode. The description is minimal and leaves key behavioral aspects unexplained.

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 a single, clear sentence followed by a relevant example. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, no filler words, and every part adds value. This is an appropriate size for a simple tool.

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 tool has only one parameter and an output schema, so return values are already covered. However, the description does not mention whether the scene must exist or distinguish between program and preview scene switching, which is relevant given sibling tools like set_preview_scene. It is adequate for a basic understanding but not fully complete for unambiguous use.

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?

There is one parameter, scene_name, with 0% schema description coverage. The description's example 'Gaming scene' implies the parameter is a scene name, but it does not explicitly define constraints (e.g., scene must exist, case sensitivity) or add meaning beyond the schema's 'Scene Name' title. The example provides partial compensation, but not enough for a higher score.

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 ('Switch') and a resource ('scene'), clearly stating the tool's function. The example 'Switch to my Gaming scene' reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_scenes or create_scene by focusing on the act of changing the active 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?

The example implies usage, showing how a user would request a scene switch. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_preview_scene, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use is clear for a basic action, but the lack of differentiation from similar sibling tools prevents a higher score.

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