studio_plan_environment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key trait that this produces requirements rather than a scene, and that modeling happens client-side through native actions — valuable. It omits whether planning is idempotent, how the seed influences output, and any side effects or limits of the planning step.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, with no filler. Tight and readable, though the defaults sentence is somewhat vague in what it is asserting.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the description does cover the pipeline role and the 'requirements not evidence' caveat. For a tool whose sole parameter is a complex nested brief with no property descriptions, the description leaves too much of the input semantics unaddressed.

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 0% across roughly nine nested brief properties (goal, seed, style, zones, detail, size_m, target, triangle_budget, reference_policy, texture_resolution), and the description explains none of them individually. It mentions 'defaults target high detail' and 'complete occupied zones' vaguely, but an agent cannot learn what triangle_budget or reference_policy mean from the description.

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 and resource ("Plan a detailed editable environment") and names the pipeline, Blender then Unreal. It stops short of naming a sibling such as studio_plan_workflow to disambiguate, so differentiation relies on the agent inferring from 'environment'.

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?

"This returns requirements, not a scene or evidence of completion" usefully signals this is a planning step that must be followed by actual modeling via the chat client. However, it never says when to prefer this over studio_plan_workflow or studio_create_job, and gives no explicit exclusions or prerequisites.

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