fire_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the core behavior—triggering all clips in the specified scene row—but does not mention any side effects (e.g., whether it stops clips in other scenes, interacts with playback state, or requires specific quantization settings). This is minimal but not misleading.

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 two sentences plus an Args block, giving the essential action and parameter meaning without any filler. The information is front-loaded and every sentence 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?

For a simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the action and parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so return details are not required. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently 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?

The schema only defines scene_index as an integer, but the description adds that it is a 'Zero-based index of the scene,' which is essential for correct usage. It also clarifies that the parameter identifies the scene row, providing necessary context beyond the schema.

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 identifies the action as 'Fire (launch) a scene', with a specific resource and scope, 'triggering all clips in that row.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fire_clip, which targets a single clip, and other playback controls.

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 provides clear context of what the tool does when used (launching a scene triggers all clips in that row), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like fire_clip or stop_all_clips. However, the scene-specific language makes the usage context understandable without explicit exclusions.

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