scene_load

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by spelling out the exact failure mode: current scene changes are lost with no confirmation prompt. It also flags a version-specific crash risk when tearing down large bake scenes, which is information an agent cannot get from any structured field.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately following with the consequence. Nothing is padding; the parenthetical adds real risk information rather than noise.

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?

The destructive-behavior side is thoroughly covered, and the output schema means return values need no explanation. The gap is the undocumented `download_missing_library_assets` flag, which matters when loading a scene whose library assets are absent.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry both parameters, but it only implies that `path` points at a .tbscene file and says nothing about `download_missing_library_assets`. An agent reading only the description would not know that missing library assets can be fetched automatically.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Load a .tbscene file"), which is unambiguous against siblings like scene_save and scene_new. It doesn't explicitly say how it differs from scene_import_model, but the file-format specificity does most of that work.

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?

Gives a clear precondition (save first, because unsaved work is discarded without a prompt) and a situational warning for large bake scenes. It stops short of naming scene_save as the alternative action, so the routing is implied rather than explicit.

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