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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known, but the description adds nothing about what gets overwritten or that partial updates may reset unspecified sub-objects. The schema notes that 'actions' replaces the full list, a crucial destructive behavior the description never echoes; 'editable' is the only nod to mutability scope.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, action-oriented and readable. It could earn a 5 only by spending a few more words on replace semantics rather than parenthetical examples of action subtypes.

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?

This is a destructive mutation with a very deep two-parameter schema, 0% top-level description coverage, and no output schema, yet the description covers only the actions subfield. An agent could not safely construct a call for tilemap_data, required_scenes, or the many enum fields from this text alone.

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% at the top level, so the description carries the burden, yet it only characterizes the 'actions' branch of the 'updates' object. The other ~25 update fields (tilemap_data, gravity, health_bar_type, objective, player start positions, etc.) get no meaning from the description, and the replace-vs-merge semantics of 'updates' is left unstated.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Update editable scene details') plus the key selector ('by ID'), and hints at the main payload category ('scene actions (event/action rules, dialogue, and menus)'). It is clearly distinguishable from create_scene and get_scene, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 is only implied: 'by ID' signals that an existing scene must already exist and that the agent should fetch it first, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer create_scene vs update_scene, and no prerequisites such as fetching valid IDs from get_game_options.

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