delete_scene

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's confirmation that this deletes a saved scene adds clarity about what is destroyed. It also specifies 'from the local sidecar', which is a useful behavioral detail not present in the annotations. There is no contradiction, and the description provides enough context for the destructive action.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the structure immediately conveys the action and target. Nothing is wasted.

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 simple two-parameter delete tool with destructive annotation and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. It clearly identifies the action, target, and storage location. The only minor gap is that it does not describe the return behavior or response_format effects, but that is partially covered by the schema and is not critical for a delete 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%, with both 'name' and 'response_format' already documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameters or their relationships. This meets the baseline for schema-covered parameters but does not go beyond it.

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 the specific verb 'Delete' and clearly identifies the resource: 'a saved playback scene from the local sidecar'. This distinguishes it from siblings like delete_playback_bookmark and aligns with the scene-related tools (save_scene, list_scenes, apply_scene). The scope is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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 states the tool's function but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as delete_playback_bookmark or the other scene tools. Usage is implied by the name and resource, which is sufficient for a straightforward delete, but there is no stated exclusion or alternative routing.

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