scene_batch

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

Annotations only say destructive/not read-only; the description adds the failure model (stops at first failing step and reports which and why), the resumability contract (mapPath holds the partially-applied save and can be re-run with the remaining steps), and the return shape. This is exactly the context annotations cannot carry for a destructive batch operation.

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 action, then reference syntax, then failure semantics, then scope. The inline example and sibling lists are dense but each earns its place by removing ambiguity that would otherwise cause malformed calls.

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?

No output schema, but the description specifies returns (the last mapPath plus each step's returned fields minus explanations). Combined with the failure and resumption rules, an agent has everything needed to invoke, chain, and recover 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 carries the full burden and does: steps is [{tool, args}] with args as the target tool accepts them minus mapPath, plus the "$<step>.<field>" cross-step reference syntax with a worked example and zero-based indexing. It also explains mapPath's resumption role, which the schema only types as a string.

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+resource: run a list of scene_* tool calls in one call, chaining each on the save the previous returned. It names precisely which sibling tools it wraps (scene_add_*, scene_set_*, scene_update_prefab, scene_remove_entities), so it cannot be confused with any single scene_* tool.

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?

Explicitly enumerates when to use it (the save-mutating tools), when not to (read-only tools, editor drivers like scene_import_assets and editor_open_map), and calls out an alternative for graph writes (write_graphs, which already batches). Both inclusion and exclusion criteria are stated.

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