set_active_scene

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation) and destructiveHint=false (not destructive). The description adds the return format ('Standard dict with keys: success, message, data'), but does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or that it changes the global active scene state. This provides some value beyond annotations but leaves 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 concise and front-loaded with the main action. It uses clear markdown sections for return format and examples, which are easy to scan. The example is redundant with the schema? but adds clarity. Slight penalty for not including usage guidance, but overall well-structured for its size.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values beyond what schema provides. However, it lacks critical context: it does not mention that the scene must already exist, that this is a write operation affecting Blender's active state, or how it interacts with other scene tools. This makes it minimally adequate but incomplete.

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?

The schema has a single required parameter 'scene_name' with no description. The description compensates by stating the action is 'by name' and provides a concrete example: {"scene_name": "Scene"}. This clarifies the expected format and semantics, though it does not detail constraints like case sensitivity or existence requirements.

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 clearly states the action: 'Set the active scene by name.' It uses a specific verb ('set') and a clear resource ('active scene'), and the tool name matches. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_scene, list_scenes, and clear_scene, which have different purposes.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the scene must exist), related tools, or any exclusions. The only context is the action itself and an example, which implies usage but does not explicit.

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