Stage Behaviour State

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses meaningful behavior: merge semantics, apply(s) execution, room-following, persistence via behaviour_state.json across reloads, page reply, and an emitted behaviour_state event. It does not cover error behavior or whether merges are shallow/deep, leaving some gaps.

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 three compact sentences, front-loading the read/merge action and following with side effects and outputs. Some jargon such as 'page command' and 'apply(s)' is unexplained, but overall it is efficient.

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 three-parameter mutation-capable tool with no annotations and an output schema present, the description covers the key behavioral consequences: persistence, apply execution, replies, and events. The main remaining omission is parameter-level detail for `scene` and `object`.

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 compensate. It explains the role of `state` as a merge payload, but does not describe `scene` or `object` explicitly or clarify the structure of the nested `state` object.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: read an object's behaviour state or merge `state` into it. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings such as stage_behaviour_run or stage_behaviours, so it stops short of a 5.

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 read-versus-merge choice is implied by whether `state` is supplied, and the description notes that a change runs apply(s). It does not say when to use this instead of stage_behaviour_run or other stage behaviour tools, so guidance remains implicit.

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