update_scene

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only gives parameter hints for tempo and time_signature but does not state whether updates are destructive, require specific permissions, or trigger side effects like playback changes. The description is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 concise, with two sentences and no redundant text. However, it could be better structured by listing all parameters or using bullet points. It earns its place but lacks completeness.

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?

With 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no description of return values (despite an output schema existing), the description is incomplete. The agent lacks sufficient context about what properties can be updated, the necessity of scene_index, and the result of the operation.

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%, so the description must explain parameters. It only describes time_signature (with format hint) and tempo (with version caveat), leaving scene_index, name, and color completely unexplained. This partial coverage means the agent may misuse omitted parameters.

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 verb 'update' and resource 'scene' are clear, indicating modification of scene properties. However, the description only explicitly mentions tempo and time_signature, implying other properties like name and color are also updatable but not stated, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_clip or update_track. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Given the many sibling tools, this is a significant gap.

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