Stage Scene Go

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that unsaved edits are saved, playing actors stop, anchors release, the person placement fallback chain, failure modes ('load failure (the old room comes back)'), the emitted events, and the reply shape. The only deduction is that the reply/json format is duplicated from the output schema rather than adding to it.

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 verb and destination lead the sentence, and every clause is information-bearing, but heavy stacked parentheticals and run-on phrasing make it harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 stateful scene-transition operation with no annotations, it covers side effects, failure modes, post-conditions, and the output schema already documents the return payload. The remaining gap is the placement semantics of the target/position parameters.

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 coverage is 0% across 5 parameters. The description clarifies that the page reads `name` or `scene` for the destination and what reload=True does, and hints that position/target govern placement ('position facing target (Blender xyz)'), but it never explicitly maps those two array parameters or explains the unusual situation of both scene and name being required.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource ('Go to another scene') and immediately scopes it ('under the construct... the room is swapped'), which is clearly distinct from sibling tools like stage_scene_new, stage_scene_reload, and stage_scene_list.

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?

Gives real conditional guidance: 'reload=True with the current scene re-reads it', and warns that after the switch 'later ops must pass scene=name'. It never names an alternative sibling (e.g., stage_scene_new for creating, stage_waypoint_go for in-scene travel), so the routing is implicit rather than explicit.

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