set_scene_name

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint, but the description adds value by explicitly stating 'without changing any clips' and 'repeating the same name has no additional effect,' which aligns with and elaborates on the annotations. No contradiction.

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, using two short sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds alternatives and idempotency. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.

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 simple rename tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the action, side effects (no clip changes), idempotency, and sibling differentiation. It provides all necessary context for correct agent 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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already defines both parameters ('name' as display name, 'scene_index' as zero-based index). The description does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool renames one Session-view scene and explicitly notes it does not change clips. It provides a specific verb ('rename') and resource ('Session-view scene'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool 'set_clip_name'.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use set_clip_name for an individual clip.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and directs to the correct alternative. It also notes that repeating the same name has no additional effect (idempotency).

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