Create a scene

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

Beyond the annotations (which only say it is a non-destructive, non-openWorld write), the description discloses concrete side effects: terrain/navmesh files are copied, and the name and unique token are renewed. It also specifies the contents of the empty-scene variant (envmap probe + ground plane, terrain off). This is useful behavioral context the annotations do not carry.

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?

A single dense sentence with the output path and primary behavior front-loaded, followed by the two modes in parentheses. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical structure is dense enough to require careful parsing.

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?

For a 3-parameter write tool with no output schema but full annotation coverage, the description covers what gets created, where, and how the template parameter changes the result. It stops short of stating what is returned or whether the writable-module requirement is validated, but there is no major gap for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: 'template=…, any module' clarifies the template may come from a different module than the target, and 'Omit for an empty scene' reinforces the optional parameter's branching behavior.

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 specific verb ('Creates') and the exact artifact produced ('SceneObj/<name>/ in a writable module'), plus the two distinct creation modes. The level of detail (directory layout, file copying, token renewal) makes it clearly distinguishable from scene_edit or clone_object without opening any schema.

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 tells the agent how to choose between the two modes: supply template=… to copy an existing scene, or omit it for a minimal empty scene. It gives clear context for when each path applies but names no explicit exclusions or alternative tools (e.g. clone_object).

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