wizard_quick_scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema: parsing behavior, scene contents, render cost ('CPU-heavy'), and preview sample ranges. However, it does not disclose whether the tool replaces the current scene, adds to it, or requires a clean state, which is a notable gap for a broad scene-building tool.

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 definition is compact and front-loaded: the main purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a clarifying parse behavior and a caveat. The Args block is efficient. Minor redundancy exists between the first and second sentences, but nothing is wasted.

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?

The description covers the basics: what it builds, parameter semantics, and a performance warning. For a complex, high-level wizard with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves out important operational context—such as interaction with the existing scene state, what happens after rendering, and how failures are reported.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does. Every parameter is given a plain-language explanation with usage hints, notably 'Keep False for scene building' and '16-32 for preview.' It could add format expectations for output_path, but overall it serves the agent well.

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 ('Build a scene'), a resource ('from a natural language description in one call'), and the concrete result ('creates objects, materials, lighting, and camera'). This clearly distinguishes it from the many specialized wizard_* siblings by positioning it as the general-purpose scene builder.

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?

Implies appropriate use with 'Works best with simple, clear descriptions,' which is a useful constraint. However, it does not explicitly address when to prefer this over sibling wizards like wizard_environment or wizard_archviz_interior, nor does it state when not to use it.

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