Restore scene

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

The description discloses critical behavioral guarantees beyond the annotations: 'always gets a new id unless keepId is set, is never active, and never overwrites an existing scene.' It also explains the file-based transport rationale. These details are essential for safe invocation and are not present in the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries the full burden and does exceptionally.

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 three concise sentences, all relevant. It starts with the core purpose, then explains the file rationale, and ends with critical behavioral constraints. There is no redundancy or filler, and the information is front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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 description covers the essential operational context: data directory location, inclusion of scene elements, id handling, and non-overwrite behavior. It does not specify return values or error handling, but given the lack of an output schema, these are less critical. Minor gaps remain (e.g., what happens on invalid file), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, and each parameter has a clear description. The tool description adds minimal new information about parameters; it only reiterates the keepId behavior, which is already stated in the schema. With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not enhance parameter understanding beyond that.

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 clear and specific action: 'Recreate a scene from a JSON file in the Foundry data directory' with explicit mention of included elements (walls, tiles, lights, sounds, tokens, levels). It also notes that it never overwrites and always assigns a new id, distinguishing it from a simple create operation. This is sufficiently specific to avoid confusion with sibling tools like create-scene.

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 implies usage via the example 'one pulled out of a world backup', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create-scene) or when not to use it. There is no explicit contrast with siblings or exclusion criteria, so guidance is largely implied rather than direct.

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