scene

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds almost nothing beyond that: it does not say that some actions mutate state (store, delete, rename) while others are pure reads (recall), nor what "the current view" comprises, nor what happens when recalling over an existing scene. With annotations present the bar is lower, but this adds no contextual value.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, which is good, but the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency. Nothing is front-loaded beyond a vague scope statement.

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 an output schema and complete parameter documentation, which reduces what the description must cover. However, for a multi-action tool with destructive-adjacent operations (delete, rename, update), one vague sentence leaves the agent without the behavioral context needed to choose the right action and key safely.

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%, with both `key` (including the "auto" next-free-slot convention) and `action` fully documented with their allowed values in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names the resource (scenes) and a rough purpose ("for later recall"), but the verb "Manages" is generic and the eight distinct operations the tool actually performs (store, recall, clear, update, rename, delete, next, previous) are nowhere in the description. An agent cannot tell from this sentence alone that the tool both writes and reads view state, nor how it differs from siblings like scene_order or save_session.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as scene_order (ordering scenes) or save_session (persisting a whole session). The agent must infer usage purely from the schema's action enum.

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