set_scene_name

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only says 'rename' without disclosing whether the scene must already exist, what happens on an out-of-range index, whether the change is persisted, or what is returned. 'In Session view' is the sole piece of extra context and does not cover any mutation semantics.

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?

A single short clause with no filler and the resource front-loaded; nothing needs trimming. It is efficient, though so terse that the brevity borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple with two fully documented required parameters and no output schema, so the description is minimally adequate. It still leaves mutation-relevant questions unanswered (index validity, persistence, error behavior) for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 both parameters are self-documented ('New name for the scene', '0-indexed scene position'), so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (rename a scene) and even scopes it to Session view, so the agent knows exactly what changes. However, it offers no differentiation from the closely related siblings set_track_name and set_clip_name, which share the same verb and could be confused at a glance.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as set_track_name or set_clip_name for renaming other entities. The agent must infer that this tool is for scenes only from the name.

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