create_scene

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

Annotations only indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. The description mentions 'plan or create' but doesn't explain that dryRun returns a plan without mutating state, that creation requires a confirmationToken, or that expectedStateVersion enforces optimistic concurrency. These are critical behavioral details for safe invocation.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action. However, given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, two-phase workflow), it may be too terse, missing important workflow context. It earns a 4 for brevity but not a 5 due to under-specification.

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 tool with 6 parameters, a two-phase plan/confirm workflow, no output schema, and no annotation beyond safety hints, the description is inadequate. It fails to explain the necessary sequence of operations (dryRun to get planHash/confirmationToken, then confirm), the role of expectedStateVersion, or what happens on creation. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based solely on the description.

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 description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that 'index' refers to an exact insertion position and that 'plan or create' relates to the dryRun parameter. Since schema coverage is high (83%), the baseline is 3, but the description provides useful context for index and the planning/creation flow, justifying a 4.

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 the verb (plan or create) and resource (Session scene) with a specific detail (exact insertion index). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_scenes and launch_scene by indicating creation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate the planning vs. creation phases, which are implied by the parameters.

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 implies that the tool is used to create scenes, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it explain the two-step dryRun-then-confirm workflow. No exclusions or alternative conditions are given, leaving the agent to infer usage from the parameters.

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