Manage Scene

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

Annotations already include destructiveHint: true, indicating modification potential. The description adds context by categorizing actions as read-only or modifying and lists specific modifying actions (create, load, save, etc.). While it doesn't detail side effects or auth needs, it provides sufficient behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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 concise and well-structured: a single sentence for the main purpose, followed by a clear list of actions grouped by read-only/modifying, and then references to sibling tools. No unnecessary words.

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 complexity (19 parameters, 12 actions, output schema present), the description covers action semantics and sibling differentiation well. However, it lacks details on parameter usage and expected results for specific actions, which would help complete the picture for an agent.

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 only 5% (only the action parameter has a meaningful description). The tool description mentions a few parameters in context (template, additive, auto_repair) but does not explain the majority of the 19 parameters, leaving the agent to infer their roles from action names alone.

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 'Performs CRUD operations on Unity scenes' and explicitly lists all supported actions, distinguishing between read-only and modifying operations. It also references sibling tools (manage_build, manage_camera) for specific use cases, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'For build settings management... use manage_build', 'For screenshots, use manage_camera'). It also separates read-only from modifying actions, helping the agent choose appropriately.

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