Set the music of a scene

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing idempotent-keep behavior (left-out parameters retain the field), destructive-clear behavior (null/empty clears), the ownership rule that a scene never points at a track outside its playlist, identifier resolution rules, the required permission, and that the result reports when a track is cleared.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the main action is front-loaded, followed by precise behavioral rules, identifier resolution, and permission requirements. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 only three parameters, no nested objects, and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It covers all parameter semantics, edge cases (null, empty, omitted, track ownership), identifier matching, and required permissions, leaving little for an agent to infer.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial semantics: 'playlist_sound alone picks a track of the playlist the scene already has' and 'a new playlist keeps the track only when it belongs to it.' This explains the interdependency between playlist and playlist_sound beyond the schema's simple field descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Set or clear the playlist and the single track a scene plays when it is activated.' This clearly scopes the tool to per-scene music assignment and distinguishes it from siblings like set-scene-playlist or manage-playlists, which handle playlist-level operations.

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 gives a clear context for use—configuring what music a scene plays upon activation—and explains the effect of omitted, null, or empty parameters. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended context is unambiguous.

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