scene_cleanup

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool removes orphaned data with zero users, implying it is a safe, destructive operation. However, it does not mention reversibility, required permissions, or side effects (e.g., if the scene unsaved changes). The disclosure is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 two concise sentences. The first states the action, the second elaborates on scope and benefit. No extraneous details. However, it could benefit from bullet points or structured format for parameter mapping.

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 4 boolean parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks details on return value, error conditions, or performance impact. It does not explain what happens if all parameters are false, or whether the operation can be undone. Completion is adequate but not thorough.

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 0%, yet the description only lists the categories (materials, meshes, images, textures) without explaining the boolean parameters (e.g., how toggling each works). It partially compensates by enumerating the data types, but it fails to add meaning to the schema, such as default behavior or interaction between parameters.

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 the tool removes orphaned data blocks (materials, meshes, images, textures) to reduce file size. The verb 'clean up' and resource 'unused data blocks' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like 'optimize_scene' or 'decimate' by focusing on unused data removal, but could be more explicit about when to use this over alternatives.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical workflow contexts (e.g., before export), or when not to use it. This omission forces the agent to infer usage from the general purpose.

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