update-scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: only modifies scene document properties, does not affect placeables, does not activate the scene, and notes that the thumbnail may be regenerated by Foundry. This is good, but could mention error handling or consequences of conflicting parameters.

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 paragraph that efficiently covers the tool's purpose, scope, and many parameters. It is front-loaded with the main verb 'Update an existing Scene document.' While somewhat long due to listing many options, it avoids redundancy and remains clear.

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 22 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description provides substantial context: it lists what can be updated, explains limitations (no placeables, no activation), and gives hints about usage (e.g., clearing links). It could be improved by mentioning the return value or typical error cases, but it is fairly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., 'rename', 'swap', 'toggle', 'clears a link with ""'), but these are similar to the schema descriptions. It does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states it updates an existing Scene document, enumerates many properties it can change (rename, background, navigation, dimensions, etc.), and explicitly states what it does NOT touch (placeables) and does NOT do (activate). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create-scene, delete-scene, and activate-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 'GM-only' as a clear usage constraint and explains the tool's scope: 'Scene-document only: never touches placeables and never activates the scene.' This provides context for when to use this tool vs. others that handle placeables or scene activation, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools.

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