scene_organize

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the disclosure burden. It only states that parts are organized into folders, without mentioning side effects such as moving/reparenting objects, creating folders, reversibility, or whether the operation affects only non-anchored/unparented parts.

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 focused sentence with no filler. The high-level action, resource, and example output categories are all included, making it easy to parse at a glance.

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?

With zero parameters, the tool is simple to invoke, and the description covers the core purpose and scope. However, the absence of annotations and output schema, combined with mutation-like behavior, leaves workflow context and side effects unexplained.

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 has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing is left undocumented at the invocation level.

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 a specific action ('organizes loose BaseParts') and a concrete outcome ('into semantic folders'), with helpful examples. It differentiates from siblings like scene_analyze by using the verb 'organizes', but it does not explicitly contrast itself with related tools such as scene_optimize.

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 intended context is implied by the description: use it when loose BaseParts need to be grouped into semantic folders. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like scene_analyze or scene_optimize.

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