save_scene

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

The annotation only declares destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the exact persistence location (~/.spotify-mcp/scenes.json) and the captured playback fields. However, it does not disclose whether saving a scene with an existing name overwrites it, which is important for a persistent sidecar write operation.

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 front-loaded sentence that packs the verb, resource, captured fields, and sidecar path with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 description is adequate for a moderately simple configuration-capture tool: it names the storage location and the scope of what is saved. However, it does not mention overwrite behavior, whether the scene is applied immediately, or any relationship to apply_scene, and there is no output schema to clarify return values. These gaps are notable but not crippling.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds a high-level framing of what a scene bundles (device, volume, shuffle/repeat, optional context) but provides no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Save') and a concrete resource ('named playback scene') while enumerating exactly what the scene consists of (device + volume + shuffle/repeat + optional context) and where it is persisted (local sidecar path). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_scene, list_scenes, and delete_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 description states what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus related siblings such as apply_scene, delete_scene, or list_scenes. The usage context is implied by the name and siblings, but there is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' statement.

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