store_scene

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior on its own. 'Overwrite' clearly indicates a destructive write, and the source of the stored state is specified. It does not, however, mention error cases (e.g., nonexistent scene) or whether the change is reversible.

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 compact: one imperative sentence states the core behavior, followed by a minimal two-item Args block. Every phrase earns its place, and the behavior is front-loaded.

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 mutation with an output schema present, the description supplies the essential semantics and side effect. It lacks only explicit edge-case or prerequisite notes, which are minor for this straightforward store 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 inline Args block must compensate. It adds meaning by calling group_id 'Numeric group ID' and defining scene_id as 'Scene ID to overwrite,' which is more than the bare schema property titles provide. The numeric wording is slightly ambiguous next to the string type, but it is still a useful semantic clue.

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 uses a specific verb ('overwrite') and resource ('scene'), and identifies exactly what is captured ('current state of all lights in the group'). This distinguishes it from scene creation, recall, and deletion without needing to compare names.

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?

The intended use is implied: save a live group state into an existing scene. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative among the many scene siblings (e.g., create_scene) is mentioned.

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