create_scene_item

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses that the operation adds an item and mentions visibility via scene_item_enabled, but does not describe return values, error behavior, effects on existing items, or prerequisites beyond 'existing source'.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main verb, followed by a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 mutation tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers all parameters and the core purpose. However, it lacks details on return values, failure modes, or positional behavior (e.g., where the new item is placed), leaving some gaps for an agent to fully understand the operation's consequences.

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 has no descriptions, so the description compensates by explaining each parameter: scene_name ('Scene to add the item to'), source_name ('Existing source (input) to place'), and scene_item_enabled ('Whether it starts visible'). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema's names and types.

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: 'Add an existing source to a scene as a new scene item.' This uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('scene item'), and distinguishes from siblings like create_scene or create_input by specifying it adds an existing source.

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 implies usage by requiring an 'existing source' and a scene, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like create_input or create_scene. It provides context but no exclusions or alternative references.

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