insert_scene

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does contribute the important behavioral facts that a beat is auto-created and that placement follows a fallback chain. It still omits failure behavior, whether the file must exist, what the response contains, and any note on the write-refusal path (ifUpdatedAt lives only in the schema).

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 dense sentence with the placement rule front-loaded and no filler. Minor awkwardness ("after afterSceneId") costs it a point but it is well-sized for the tool's scope.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the placement logic that matters most but leaves the media parameters, error/refusal conditions, and return shape unaddressed. Adequate to invoke successfully in the common case, incomplete for edge cases.

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 coverage is only 43%, so the description must compensate; it does add real meaning for act ("1-based") and afterSceneId (used as insertion anchor). But audio, video remain completely unexplained in both schema and description, so the compensation is partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Add a scene") and immediately discloses a non-obvious nesting side effect ("with one beat"). The resource-level distinction from siblings like insert_beat and insert_act is clear from the noun, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 placement precedence chain (afterSceneId > act N > end) implicitly tells the agent how to steer the call, which is genuinely useful. However, it never says when to choose insert_beat or insert_act instead, and there are no stated preconditions (e.g., file must already exist, scene id must be valid).

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