rename_scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior, but it only says 'Rename a scene.' and provides basic arg hints. It does not disclose whether the rename is persistent, whether it affects group references, what side effects occur, or what kind of response should be expected.

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 short and front-loaded with the operation, followed by a compact, readable Args block. There is no fluff or redundant prose, and the format is easy for an agent to parse.

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 rename operation with an output schema available, the description is minimally sufficient to identify the operation and the required parameters. However, it lacks usage guidance, behavioral context, and any differentiation from sibling rename tools, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 input schema has no parameter descriptions, so the Args block is the only semantic source. It does add some value: 'Numeric group ID' and 'New display name' clarify two parameters, though 'Scene ID to rename' is largely a repetition of the parameter name. The 'Numeric group ID' phrasing also sits awkwardly with the schema's string type for group_id, which the agent must reconcile.

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 opens with 'Rename a scene.', which is essentially a direct restatement of the tool name and carries no additional explanatory value. It does not describe the role of the group or scene, and it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like rename_light or rename_sensor beyond the resource name itself.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool, what conditions or prerequisites apply, or which alternatives might be more appropriate. The sibling list includes several other rename and scene-related tools, but the description does not reference them or exclude any cases.

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