restore_state

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses return behavior (True/False) and implies the scene is overwritten by the word 'restore', but it does not explicitly warn that unsaved changes will be lost or describe other side effects. This is useful but not comprehensive.

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 short and front-loaded with purpose, but the 'IMPORTANT: Always use MCP tools for scene operations' sentence is a generic boilerplate that does not earn its place for this specific tool. The return/example block is useful.

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 simple zero-param tool with an output schema, the description covers the core behavior and return semantics. It is slightly incomplete in not explicitly stating that restoring overwrites the current scene, but this is reasonably inferred from the verb 'restore'.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms this. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed; the baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 'Restore the scene to a previously saved state', which is a specific verb+resource combination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_state (inverse operation) and clear_scene (different operation).

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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'restore' and the return condition (False if no saved state), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The generic 'IMPORTANT: Always use MCP tools' note is not tool-specific.

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