Modify an existing scene's settings—name, description, location, time of day, and mood—to keep your short-drama project aligned. Adjust scene context before continuing with storyboards, frames, or video shots.
改场景设定(名字/描述/地点/时段/氛围)。免费。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mood | No | ||
| name | No | ||
| location | No | ||
| scene_id | Yes | ||
| description | No | ||
| time_of_day | No | ||
| physical_location | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.57Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. However, it only states '免费' (free) and does not mention any side effects, permission requirements, reversibility, partial update semantics, or effects on existing data. As a mutation tool, this is a significant gap.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the action and the key editable fields. It has no wasted words and is easy to scan, though it could benefit from a brief usage note. Efficient and appropriately sized.
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 mutation tool with seven parameters, one required, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It lacks information about prerequisites, error conditions, whether partial updates are allowed, and what the response will contain. The minimal note adds no practical context.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It lists five of the seven fields (name, description, location, time period, atmosphere) in natural language, which helps map them to parameters like mood, time_of_day, and physical_location. However, it omits scene_id and does not clarify the difference between location and physical_location, limiting its usefulness.
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 explicitly states the tool updates scene settings and enumerates the editable fields (name, description, location, time period, atmosphere), matching the schema parameters. This clearly distinguishes it from read-only tools like get_scenes and other resource-specific updaters like update_character.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the purpose is implied, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., scene must exist) or explicit exclusions. The only extra note is '免费' (free), which is cost information, not usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.