ecamm_switch_scene

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world operation. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral trait beyond them: it blocks and waits for Ecamm to confirm the switch. It says nothing about failure modes, ambiguous-name errors, or whether the previous scene is restored, which for a live-broadcast mutation would matter.

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?

Two compact clauses with the action first and the accepted input forms immediately after, followed by the confirmation behavior. No filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the action, all accepted identifier formats, and the synchronous confirmation behavior — enough to call it correctly. The only gaps are error/ambiguity handling and how to verify the resulting state, which are secondary.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter meaning, and it does: partial names are accepted if unique, plus the "Group / Scene" qualified form and raw id. That is a meaningful addition over a bare string. The uniqueness rule for ambiguous partials is stated but the error/behavior on ambiguity is not.

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 and resource ("Take a scene live") with the accepted identifier forms, so an agent knows this switches the live program scene. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling ecamm_step_scene, which leaves some ambiguity for the agent to resolve from names alone.

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 implied by "Take a scene live" — the agent can infer this is the tool for making a scene the active output. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., being in a live/connected session), and no pointer to the alternative stepping tool.

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