Switch LIVE Studio 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 explaining behavior. It discloses two valuable traits: idempotency (safe to retry) and verification (checks the resulting active scene). These go beyond the tool's name and add insight into execution semantics. However, it does not mention error conditions or return values, which would enhance transparency further.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the key action ('switch') and adds the critical qualifiers (idempotently, exact scene, verify). Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the core action and idempotency, but it leaves the return value and failure modes ambiguous. The phrase 'verify the resulting active scene' implies a check, but it does not explicitly state what the caller receives (e.g., the active scene name or a success indicator). This is a notable gap given the absence of an output schema.

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 already provides 100% coverage with a clear description ('Exact scene name returned by studio_list_scenes'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description reinforces the parameter's exactness by saying 'exact scene,' but adds no new syntactic or semantic detail beyond the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline without enhancing it.

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 tool's purpose: to switch to an exact scene and verify the active scene afterward. It uses a specific verb ('switch') and resource ('scene'), and the phrase 'exact scene' distinguishes it from listing or other scene-related operations. This is unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings like studio_list_scenes.

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 the tool should be used when the agent wants to change to a specific scene, but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state when not to use it. The idempotency hint is useful, but there is no direct guidance on how this differs from other studio actions, so it only meets the 'implied usage' level.

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