set_scene_property

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

Discloses the non-obvious side effect that writing tempo/time signature switches scene control on, which is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs to know. Without annotations, this note adds real value, though other effects (e.g., validation, overwrite semantics) are not covered.

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 well-organized with a clear summary followed by a bulleted list of parameters and a key behavioral note. It earns its length, although the Parameters section partially overlaps with the schema.

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 setter with three parameters, the description covers the main intent, the exact property names, the indexing convention, and the enable side-effect, and an output schema is present. Minor gaps remain around value constraints and error behavior, so it's not a 5.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 0%, the description enumerates the writable property names and clarifies that scene_index is 1-based, adding meaning beyond the bare type definitions. It falls short of specifying allowed value domains/ranges for each property.

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?

Clearly identifies the action (set) and target (a scene's name, colour, tempo, or time signature), and lists writable property names. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling set_tempo, but 'a scene's' scopes it appropriately.

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?

Usage context is implied by the list of writable properties and the note about enabling scene control, but there is no explicit when/where-not guidance or reference to alternative tools such as set_tempo or fire_scene.

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