scene_fix

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing important behavioral traits: it specifies that 'test_scene action REQUIRES user_confirmed=true because it changes lights' (safety requirement), mentions 'restore from backup' (recovery capability), and indicates interactive testing with user feedback. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like scene disruption or performance impact.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence establishes the core purpose and capabilities, while the second provides critical safety information about the test_scene action. It could be slightly more front-loaded by leading with the safety requirement.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple actions with different behaviors) and no annotations or output schema, the description does well by explaining the tool's relationship to scene_diagnose, listing fix capabilities, and specifying the critical safety requirement for test_scene. However, it doesn't describe what happens after fixes are applied or potential error conditions.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the relationship between 'test_scene' and 'user_confirmed' parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's already documented in the schema descriptions for each parameter.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Fix problems found by scene_diagnose' with specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning its diagnostic relationship with 'scene_diagnose' and listing specific fix capabilities (null values, missing lights, backup restoration, interactive testing).

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Fix problems found by scene_diagnose' establishes the primary use case. It also specifies when-not-to-use alternatives by mentioning specific capabilities (fix null values, add missing lights, restore from backup, interactive testing) that differentiate it from other scene manipulation tools like scene_activate or scene_update.

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