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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and closed-world scope. The description adds valuable output context: it returns an embedded JSON resource, a filename, and an openable link, and it explicitly states it does not generate cloud storage links. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two tightly written sentences that front-load the core action and negative constraint. No filler, every clause adds information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description does a fair job of covering return values (embedded JSON, filename, link) and one negative constraint. But the input schema is rich (nested object, two params) and the description adds almost nothing about parameter semantics, leaving a completeness gap.

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% for two parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only vaguely implies that the required 'document' is the full scene to validate, and it never mentions the optional 'name' parameter or format expectations.

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 a specific action: validate the full scene and return an application/json embedded resource, filename, and openable scene link. It distinguishes itself from siblings like build_scene or inspect_scene by focusing on export, but does not explicitly name any alternative.

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?

It implies appropriate use for larger scene delivery and notes that cloud storage links are not generated, which hints at when to choose otherwise. However, no sibling tool is named and no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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