scene_optimize

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key mutating behavior: automatic verified anchoring. However, it does not explain side effects on loose instances, permissions needed, reversibility, or what happens to detected physics issues, leaving the mutation profile incomplete.

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 a single dense sentence with the main action front-loaded. The '[HIGH_LEVEL]' prefix is mildly unnecessary but not harmful, and every other word contributes useful information.

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 annotations or output schema are present, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns, what side effects beyond anchoring occur, or when to use sibling tools. An agent can infer the main behavior but lacks enough information to invoke it safely and confidently in an autonomous workflow.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds high-level context about scanning and anchoring but does not provide additional per-parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific action ('Scans Workspace') and names the exact detection targets: unanchored parts, physics issues, and loose instances. It also names the distinctive outcome, 'automatic verified anchoring,' which differentiates it from siblings like scene_analyze and scene_organize.

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 no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings. It never mentions alternatives such as scene_analyze for diagnostics or scene_organize for reorganization, and no exclusions or prerequisites are noted. Usage is only implied by the described behavior.

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