game_change_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It states that the scene changes but does not disclose important runtime effects such as whether the current scene is unloaded, whether game state is lost, or whether the change is instant and reversible. For a mutating runtime operation, this is a notable transparency 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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: the action, the object, and the runtime context are all present, and nothing needs to be trimmed or expanded for readability.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, the absence of any behavioral detail about runtime side effects and the lack of guidance relative to similarly named scene tools make it only minimally complete for reliable agent selection.

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 fully documents scenePath with a type and a clear example, and all one parameter is covered, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantic detail beyond the schema, but none is critically needed for this simple parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Switch') and a precise resource ('scene file in the running game'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It is also sufficiently distinct from siblings like set_main_scene, save_scene, and game_instantiate_scene because it emphasizes the runtime context and the act of changing the current scene.

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 phrase 'in the running game' implies when to use this tool: during a live game session when the current scene should be replaced. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related sibling tools such as game_instantiate_scene or set_main_scene, leaving some room for an agent to confuse scene switching with scene instantiation or project-level configuration.

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