Reset Active Scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses the destructive nature with 'flushes the undo buffer', 'swaps the active document for a fresh empty BaseDocument (everything goes)', and carefully enumerates what prefix mode does and does not remove. This is unusually transparent for a reset-type operation.

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 sentences long and every sentence adds critical information: the main action, the prefix-mode behavior, and the performance rationale. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids redundant wording. The density of technical terms is justified by the complexity of the operation.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior, both modes, a usage example, and the key side effect (undo flush). The keep_active_rd parameter is only alluded to, and the return value/error behavior is not mentioned, but the 100% schema coverage compensates for the parameter gap.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by providing a concrete prefix example ('e2e_'), specifying the exact categories affected (objects, materials, non-active render data, non-main takes), and explaining the undo-buffer side effect. The keep_active_rd parameter is only implicitly referenced via 'non-active render data', but the schema fully documents it.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'Clear scene state in one RPC', and then precisely defines two distinct modes (prefix-based partial cleanup and full document reset). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling remove_entity by stating it is 'Much faster than chained remove_entity calls', making its role 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?

It names a clear use case ('cheap cleanup for test suites') and an explicit alternative condition ('Much faster than chained remove_entity calls when cleanup involves animated objects'). It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, but the context implies it is the bulk-reset choice rather than for fine-grained per-entity removal.

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