シーン設定の変更

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('change') but does not clarify whether existing settings are overwritten, whether the scene must exist, or any side effects. The basic action is clear, but deeper behavioral context is missing.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose and includes a parenthetical list of example keys. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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 has three parameters including a nested settings object, but no output schema and no annotations. The description highlights the settings keys but omits details about `path` and `scene`, and does not mention return values or error behaviors. It is adequate for basic use but leaves notable gaps.

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 description adds meaning to the `settings` parameter by mapping human-readable terms (resolution, frame rate, name) to example keys (video.width, video.height, video.rate, audio.rate, name). However, the `path` and `scene` parameters are not explained, and schema coverage is only 33%, so the description only partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 tool's function: changing scene settings such as resolution, frame rate, and name, with concrete example keys (video.width, video.height, etc.). This makes it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like update_object and live_update_object, which target object properties rather than scene-level settings.

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, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage cues.

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