blender_clear_scene

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

Beyond annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description details refusal behavior, error listing, confirmation requirement, and the side-effect of setting units to mm.

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?

Concise, front-loaded action, and each sentence adds essential context about safety and force behavior.

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?

For a simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers behavior, override, and side-effect; output schema exists for return details.

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?

Though schema coverage is 0%, the description fully explains the only parameter `force`: overriding safety for fresh-build scenarios.

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 clearly states 'Remove all objects from the scene' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by its destructive all-objects operation.

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?

It explains when to use force=True (fresh-build scenarios) and describes default behavior protecting work, but doesn't explicitly name alternative tools like restore_checkpoint for scenarios where recovery is needed.

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