fire_scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it discloses the side effect (triggers all playable clips in the selected scene), the timing behavior (uses current launch quantization), and the error case (out-of-range index returns INVALID_PARAMS). It omits reversibility and what happens on partially-empty scenes, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: purpose first, then side effects, then example and edge case. Front-loaded and scannable with no filler.

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 single-parameter action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, an example, and the failure mode. Near-complete; only the acceptable index range is left implicit.

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%, so the description must compensate. The example 'fire_scene(0) launches the first scene' does establish that the index is zero-based, which the bare integer schema does not convey, but range bounds and valid max are not given beyond the generic INVALID_PARAMS note.

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 specific verb (fire) plus resource (Session scene) and adds the launch-quantization qualifier, so the agent knows exactly what action occurs. It does not explicitly name the closely-related sibling fire_clip, but the resource distinction makes them separable.

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?

Usage context is implied ('one Session scene') and reinforced by a concrete example, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no reference to alternatives such as fire_clip or get_scenes for discovering valid indices.

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