edit_scene

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

With no annotations present the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that the result contains an undo_id for restoring the edit and that asset scope affects all LOADED instances (implying unloaded instances are untouched), but it says nothing about permissions, whether edits persist across a rebuild, or other side effects.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then scope rules, then value formats, then return behavior. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the line-broken layout makes it read slightly like a spec dump rather than prose.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the important load-bearing details: operation families, scope behavior, value units, and the undo_id return. Gaps remain around operation enumeration and ground/focus value shapes, but an agent has enough to call the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and largely does: it defines scope semantics, unit conventions for transform (meters, degrees, multipliers), and tint color/material formats, plus asset_id's role. It still never enumerates valid values for the required 'operation' parameter, though the opening sentence hints at them.

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 states a specific verb ('edit') and resource ('scene') plus the concrete operation families it supports: transform, tint, ground, focus. 'Without a Blender rebuild' signals the engine-level nature and implicitly separates it from Blender-rebuild siblings like build_asset or prepare_asset, though no sibling is named 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?

The description explains the two scope modes ('selected' vs 'asset') and their effect, which is real usage guidance for choosing the right call. However, it never says when to use edit_scene versus alternatives such as edit_selected_prop, edit_prop_part, arrange_props, or undo_scene_edit, nor any prerequisites.

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