set_scene_name

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the mutation ('Set the name') without addressing side effects, error behavior, reversibility, or whether the scene must already exist.

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 highly concise with a single lead sentence followed by a clear parameter list. Every line adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 two-parameter setter, the description covers purpose and parameter meanings, but lacks any mention of error handling, valid ranges, or relationship to undo. Given the absence of annotations, this leaves some gaps about the tool's full behavior.

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 description compensates for the lack of schema descriptions (0% coverage) by providing per-parameter explanations: scene_index is 'the index of the scene to rename' and name is 'the new name for the scene.' While no constraints or examples are given, the explanations successfully disambiguate the schema titles.

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 action ('Set the name') and resource ('a scene'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like set_track_name and set_clip_name. However, it does not add any distinguishing nuance or scope beyond the basic verb+resource pair.

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 information about when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description does not reference sibling tools, prerequisites, or conditions under which this should be used instead of another naming tool.

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