Switch program scene

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the two-phase dry-run/confirm flow and the live-stream confirmation requirement, which an agent could not infer from annotations alone. It stops short of saying what happens to the previously live scene or on an unknown sceneName.

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?

Two dense sentences, zero waste, with the core action front-loaded and the guardrails immediately after. Nothing to trim.

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?

With no output schema, the description plus the dry_run parameter description adequately explain that a dry run only describes the change. For a 3-parameter mutating tool the coverage is solid, though error behavior (nonexistent scene) is unaddressed.

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 67%, and both documented parameters (dry_run, confirmLive) already carry inline descriptions. The description reinforces their semantics with the operational rule ('needs confirmLive=true while streaming/recording'), adding value beyond the schema, though sceneName's absence behavior remains undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ('Puts a scene on program') and clarifies the consequence ('what viewers see'), which disambiguates it from read-only siblings like list_scenes and get_overview. An agent can tell immediately that this is the mutating scene-activation tool.

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 clear conditions for the guarded workflow: dry_run is the default and confirmLive=true is required while streaming/recording. It never names an alternative tool, but switch_scene has no direct sibling competitor, so the missing exclusion is low-cost.

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