set_section_next

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 only states the core operation without revealing side effects (e.g., modifies the montage asset), whether changes are reversible, or any requirements like the section names being valid. For a mutation tool, 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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the purpose in the first line. The argument list is compact and directly follows, with no filler. Every sentence and phrase earns its place, making it easy for an agent to quickly parse the core action and required inputs.

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 that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and minimal schema coverage, the description should provide more context about the expected effect on the montage, the need for section names to exist, and any return value. The output schema exists but is not visible, and the description does not explain what happens after setting the next section. Significant gaps remain for successful invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning. It provides brief but useful semantic annotations for each parameter: 'Unreal asset path', 'Current section name', and 'Next section to play'. These explain the role of each parameter better than the schema's generic titles, but they lack detail on formats, constraints, or relationship to existing montage sections.

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: 'Set the next section for a montage section.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that conveys the tool's purpose. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like set_section_time (which sets a time value) by the explicit 'next section' terminology, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not specify when to use this tool versus other montage section tools (e.g., set_section_time, add_montage_section), nor does it mention any prerequisites such as section existence or valid section names. The purpose is implied but not contextualized.

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