set_current_scene_transition

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 does explain the core behavior: sets a transition to be active for the next scene switch. However, it omits potential error conditions (e.g., nonexistent transition name), whether the current transition is immediately affected, or any side effects. It is not misleading, but not rich either.

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 very concise: one sentence describing the action followed by a single-argument itemization. It front-loads the main purpose and avoids fluff. The Args section is slightly redundant given the schema but is minimal and acceptable.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), so the description covers the basic action. However, it lacks context about how a transition becomes active, what happens if the name is invalid, or that related tools exist (e.g., get_scene_transition_list for lookup). For a setter tool with no annotations, this leaves small gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides a basic explanation for the parameter: "transition_name: Name of the transition to activate." This clarifies that the parameter expects a name rather than an ID, but it largely restates the parameter name and lacks additional context like how to retrieve valid names (e.g., via get_scene_transition_list).

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 action: "Make a transition the active one for the next scene switch." This clearly identifies the verb (make/set), the resource (transition), and the effect (active for next switch). It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_current_scene_transition_duration and get_current_scene_transition, which deal with duration and retrieval respectively.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention checking available transitions via get_scene_transition_list, nor does it state prerequisites such as the transition needing to exist or the context of a scene switch. No exclusions or explicit usage context is provided.

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