fire_scene

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

With no annotations, the description does well by explaining the concrete effect: clips in the row start and tracks with empty slots stop. This gives a clear mental model of side effects, though it omits edge cases like invalid scene_index or whether other tracks are affected.

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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler. It states the action, the effect, and the parameter in two sentences.

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 tool with one parameter JH, the description is adequate. It covers the core behavior and parameter meaning. Absence of prerequisites or error handling doesn't detract significantly given the tool's simplicity.

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 schema only defines 'scene_index' as an integer with zero description. The description adds the key semantic detail that it is 1-based, which is essential for correct usage.

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: 'Launch a scene' and details the behavioral consequence (starting clips in the row and stopping tracks with empty slots). It effectively distinguishes from sibling 'fire_clip' by referencing a row-based scene launch.

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 (launching a scene) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like fire_clip or start_playback, nor does it mention when not to use it. Guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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