Update Scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only lists updatable fields and does not disclose side effects, partial update semantics, or whether checklist is a merge or full replacement. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified to the point of being cryptic, though conciseness itself is acceptable.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, partial update behavior, or how it relates to sibling tools, leaving an agent poorly equipped to invoke it correctly.

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 only 11%, so the description must compensate. It names a few fields (goal, conflict, change, checklist) but adds no semantics about formats, constraints, or required parameters. Status, pov, and title are left completely unexplained.

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 identifies the action (update) and target resource (scene) with specific fields (goal/conflict/change/checklist). While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like close_scene or update_chapter, the resource and field focus are clear enough.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state whether this is for content updates as opposed to status changes, nor mention prerequisites or the effect of omitting optional fields.

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