set_scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses the OSC broadcast to every target, the partial-update semantics (unspecified fields are left alone), and that bpm is not the real tempo. It omits reversibility, whether cues are needed to persist the scene, and error/rate-limit behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, followed by compact parameter notes and a tempo caveat. Every sentence carries information, though the parameter notes are telegraphic enough to be slightly fragmented.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the mutation semantics and OSC broadcast are covered. However, for a 6-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations and zero schema descriptions, the unexplained key and section parameters and the unstated meaning of a 'scene' leave real gaps.

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 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate. It defines ranges for energy and macros (0..1), the palette format (list of hex colors), and partially explains bpm, but key and section are left entirely undefined in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb (change), resource (the shared scene), and a distinctive side effect (broadcast to every target over OSC), which separates it from the raw send_osc sibling. It does not name any sibling explicitly to contrast against, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives explicit cross-tool routing for the tempo case: bpm here is informational, and changing Live's tempo requires ableton-mcp's set_tempo or Ableton Link. It also clarifies the partial-update contract ('only fields you pass are changed'). No guidance on when to use save_cue/recall_cue instead, so not a 5.

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