draw_scene

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds genuinely new behavior: compilation is deterministic and content-hashed (so previewed output is reproduced exactly) and the call returns a job_id and scene_id, signaling async job semantics.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, the determinism guarantee, and the return contract. Nothing is redundant and the differentiating information (see preview_scene) is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 mutation tool the annotations carry the safety profile and the description names the return values, which is good. But with a nested scene object at 0% schema coverage and unexplained 'order'/'speed' parameters, an agent lacks the argument-level detail needed to invoke it confidently.

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% across three parameters (order, scene, speed). The description points to preview_scene for the shape language of 'scene', which is useful, but 'order' and 'speed' receive no explanation anywhere, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('draw a declarative scene') and explicitly ties it to its sibling by noting the scene object is the same as preview_scene, so the agent can separate 'draw' from 'preview' and from draw_paths/draw_svg/draw_text without opening schemas.

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 a clear workflow: pass the scene you previewed and it draws exactly what you saw, which routes the agent through preview_scene first. It does not explicitly state when to choose this over draw_paths, draw_svg, or draw_text, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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