write_scene_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that certain fields enable continuity check but does not disclose side effects (e.g., does it shift other scenes?), expected output, authentication requirements, or error conditions. The behavioral disclosure is minimal.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the primary action, and the second adds contextual guidance. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the complexity (11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but not thorough. It covers the tool's core purpose and key optional fields but lacks details on required parameters, expected return value, or behavior when position is invalid. It is sufficient for basic use but might leave gaps for complex scenarios.

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 description coverage is only 36% (4 of 11 parameters have descriptions). The description adds semantic value by explaining that povCharacterId, locationId, and timeMarker together enable continuity check, and that sceneGoal, conflict, and outcome are optional but recommended. However, it does not explain projectId, chapterId, beatIdTarget, or content beyond what the schema provides.

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: 'Insert a scene at a specific position.' It identifies the resource (scene) and the context (position), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like `write_scene_update` by focusing on creation with a position parameter.

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 implies when to use optional fields (for continuity check and revision suggestions) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like `write_scene_update`. No exclusion criteria or prerequisites are provided.

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