fire_scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action. It does not explain what firing a scene does behaviorally (e.g., launching all clips in the scene, interaction with currently playing clips, quantization) or whether it is a read or write operation.

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 single sentence is front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, its extreme brevity leaves no room for necessary behavioral context, making it slightly under-sized for an action tool with no annotations.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema action tool, the description omits what firing a scene does, any side effects or return values, and any error conditions. It is not complete enough for an agent to invoke it reliably without external knowledge.

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 100%, and the single parameter scene_index is fully documented in the schema as '0-indexed scene position.' The description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Fire') and resource ('scene') with the context 'Session view,' making the core action clear. It distinguishes from siblings like fire_clip by resource, but does not explicitly name or differentiate alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as fire_clip, stop_clip, or stop_all_clips. It also omits prerequisites like whether playback must be running or a scene must be selected.

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