Rewrite one scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly communicates the side effects: in-place replacement, the exact replaced region, and no changes to the rest of the script. It does not discuss reversibility or error behavior, but the core destructive semantics are explicit.

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 tight sentences that state the action, the exact span, the identifier source, and the non-effect on the rest of the script. There is no filler and no redundant restatement of the title.

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 small, well-schematized mutation tool, the description is complete: it tells the agent what gets replaced, how the target scene is identified, and what is left untouched. The optional docIndex and required text format are already covered by the schema, and no output schema exists to document.

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 input schema already fully documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, including that text must include the scene heading and that docIndex defaults to the frontmost document. The description repeats only the sceneIndex source from beat_get_scenes and adds no new parameter-level syntax, so the baseline score applies.

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 ('Replace a single scene's text in place'), defines the exact span ('heading through the line before the next scene'), and clarifies that the rest of the script is untouched. This clearly distinguishes it from beat_set_text, beat_insert_text, and beat_append_text.

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 establishes the intended use: modify one existing scene by sceneIndex from beat_get_scenes, not insert, append, or replace the entire script. It lacks an explicit named alternative or 'when not to use' clause, but the single-scene scope and 'rest untouched' give clear routing context.

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