launch_scene

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's 'Plan or launch' adds only that launching has side effects, which is tautological with 'launch'. It does not disclose the requirement for a prior planning step, the short-lived nature of the confirmation token, or what happens if expectedStateVersion is stale. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no extraneous words. It efficiently captures the action and scope. The structure is near-optimal for the amount of information it conveys.

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?

The tool has a non-trivial two-phase workflow (plan via dryRun, then launch with confirmationToken) and no output schema, so an agent needs to understand the sequence and requirements. The description omits this entirely, leaving the agent to piece it together from parameter hints. For a 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, this is a significant gap.

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?

All five parameters have full descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to explain them. The description's 'Plan or launch' indirectly maps to the dryRun parameter, but it adds no extra semantic detail. This aligns with the baseline of 3 when the schema carries the burden.

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 'Plan or launch one exact Session scene' uses a specific verb ('plan' or 'launch') and a precise resource ('one exact Session scene'), clearly distinguishing this tool from clip-level operations like launch_clip and from planning-only tools. It communicates both the planning and execution capabilities in a compact way.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as launch_clip or other scene-related tools. It also fails to mention the two-phase workflow (dry run to plan, then confirm to launch) that is implied by the dryRun and confirmationToken parameters. An agent is left to infer the necessary sequencing from the schema, which is risky.

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