wizard_scene_optimize

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, and it does so by naming each mutation it performs: applying modifiers, merging doubles, removing loose geometry, recalculating normals outward, and decimating. It also includes skip semantics ('0 = skip') to clarify when operations do nothing. It does not explicitly warn that these changes are destructive to the scene, but the verbs make that reasonably inferable.

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 description is front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, followed by a compact operation summary and a clean Args list. Every sentence earns its place and there is no vague filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

All five parameters are documented with meaningful semantics, and the scope is stated as the 'entire scene' with 'all mesh objects' for modifiers. Minor gaps remain: no explicit mention of return value and no direct warning that the optimization is destructive to the original scene, but the description is largely complete for a batch-optimization tool.

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%, and the description fully compensates: every parameter gets operational meaning beyond its raw name and default. For example, 'merge_by_distance: Merge distance for doubles removal. 0 = skip' and 'decimate_ratio: 0.5 = halve poly count' explain real behavior an agent needs to pick values.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Optimize the entire scene for export or rendering in one call.' The second sentence enumerates operations (applies modifiers, removes doubles, fixes normals, decimates), making clear this is a batch optimizer rather than the individual sibling tools like apply_modifier or recalculate_normals.

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 gives a clear usage context: use this when preparing an entire scene for export or rendering, and the phrase 'in one call' signals it as a batch alternative to per-object operations. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the triggering scenario is clear enough for an agent.

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