Create a Scenebuilder scene

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds only 'FREE' which is minor. It does not disclose side effects, return values, or any behavioral details beyond the annotations, leaving the agent without important context about state changes.

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 consists of two short sentences that pack purpose and a key usage note with no fluff. Every sentence adds value, achieving maximum conciseness.

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?

Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It lacks information about what the tool returns (e.g., scene ID) or what 'Scenebuilder scene' means, which could leave an agent uncertain about how to use the result.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. Baseline is 4 per guidelines. The description adds nothing about parameters, but there are none to describe.

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 'Create' and resource 'Scenebuilder scene' with purpose 'for stitching clips'. The sibling tools include other scene-related actions like flow_export_scene and flow_add_clips_to_scene, making this tool's purpose distinct.

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 statement 'Flow's chat agent cannot do this — it is a UI-only surface' provides clear context that this tool is the only way to create scenes programmatically, giving a strong when-to-use indication. It lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool comparisons, but the context is valuable.

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