Recall scene

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

The description discloses two behaviors that annotations do not: the quantized timing (fires on the next bar while the sound plays, immediately otherwise) and a real side effect ('Stops the song if it was playing'). These are valuable for an agent planning a sequence. It stops short of covering failure behavior when the scene is missing, and the 'stops the song' side effect sits somewhat at odds with destructiveHint=false, making that annotation potentially under-informative.

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 tight sentence, with the core action front-loaded before the timing and side-effect qualifiers. Every clause contributes information; nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive tool the description covers the action, timing, and a major side effect, which is decent. It leaves gaps on how to address a scene by value and what happens on failure (nonexistent scene, song stopped mid-playback), which matter for a state-changing tool with no 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?

There is one required parameter, 'scene', with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It says only 'a saved scene' and never explains how the scene is identified — name, index, or ID — nor what a valid value looks like, leaving the agent to guess at the string format.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Switch to a saved scene') and pairs it with a concrete metaphor ('like pressing its button'). It implicitly distinguishes itself from save_scene by emphasizing that the scene is already saved, though it never names the sibling explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for activating an existing scene rather than creating one. There is no explicit 'use this when…' clause, no mention of alternatives such as save_scene, and no statement of preconditions (e.g., that the scene must already exist).

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