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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it returns a document and a scene web link (important since there is no output schema), it is stateless with no drafts/files/server sessions, and unknown physical values are preserved as symbols rather than fabricated. Nothing conflicts with the readOnlyHint.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action and inputs, then outputs, then constraints. Zero redundant 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?

Given a deeply nested SceneSpec, no output schema, and no top-level parameter descriptions, the description covers the return value and statelessness well but says almost nothing about how 'checking' behaves (what constitutes a failure, whether errors are returned vs. thrown, or how relative placement is resolved). Adequate but leaves real gaps for a tool this complex.

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?

Top-level parameters (name, spec) carry no schema descriptions, so coverage is effectively 0% at that level. The description adds the key semantic that the spec must be 'complete' and that unresolved physical quantities stay symbolic, but it does not explain spec substructure (components, placement relations, intent) beyond what the nested schema itself hints at.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: take a complete SceneSpec, generate and check the scene by relative relations, and return a document plus a scene web link. This distinguishes it reasonably from review_scene/preview_scene by emphasizing generation+checking, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 clause '无草稿、文件或服务器会话' implies this is the one-shot, stateless build path and that incremental/draft workflows belong elsewhere (update_scene), but no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use condition is explicit. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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