Rename or recolor a scene row, such as Intro or Drop, with undo support.
Rename or recolour a scene row (e.g. 'Intro', 'Drop'). Undoable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New name. | |
| color | No | #rrggbb, or empty for the default colour. | |
| scene | Yes | 0-based scene row. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so safety is established structurally. The description adds genuine context beyond them by declaring the operation 'Undoable', telling the agent a recovery path exists via edit_undo. It does not clarify partial-update behavior (that both fields are optional), which would have pushed it higher.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler; the operation and its consequences arrive first. Nothing repeats the schema or the annotations.
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 three-parameter metadata mutation with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies what matters: scope and undoability. The only gap is silence on whether supplying one field leaves the other unchanged.
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 name, color format and the 0-based scene index are fully documented in the schema. The example values ('Intro', 'Drop') hint at typical names but add no semantics the schema lacks, making the baseline 3 correct.
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 states a specific verb set (rename, recolour) and a precise resource (a scene row), so an agent can immediately tell this edits scene metadata rather than launching or listing scenes. It lacks an explicit contrast to scenes_list/scenes_launch, keeping it just short of a 5.
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?
Usage is only implied by the verb phrasing; there is no statement of when to call this versus scenes_launch or scenes_list, nor any prerequisite such as the scene existing first. Adequate but leaves selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.