load

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds real value beyond them: it states the current scene is replaced (data loss) and that concurrent modifications cause a retry error, which the agent cannot learn from the annotations alone. It does not say whether the prior scene is recoverable or whether the operation can be undone.

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?

One short sentence with the destructive action front-loaded and the concurrency caveat second; nothing is wasted. It is telegraphic, but that suits a single-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the tool is simple with one parameter. Still, the undefined 'name' semantics and the absence of guidance on recovering from the retry error leave meaningful gaps for a destructive, world-affecting operation.

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% for the single required 'name' parameter, so the description carries the burden and does not compensate. 'A saved document' only hints that name identifies the document; it never explains the name format, the regex pattern, or whether it refers to a resource identifier rather than a file path.

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 gives a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('the scene') plus the source ('a saved document'), which resolves the ambiguity of the bare name 'load'. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like save, get_scene, or clear, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this restores a previously saved document into the current scene. There is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives (e.g., clear then load, or get_scene for inspection) and no stated prerequisites.

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