Apply Scene Change

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description's 'Execute scene mutations' aligns. The description adds behavioral details (pre-check, post-verify, optional save) beyond annotations, but doesn't explain what these steps entail, failure behavior, or reversibility. It adds some transparency but not rich context.

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 very concise and front-loaded, but the stray '1.' on the second line is a formatting artifact that adds noise and undermines structural quality. It could be a single clean sentence without the artifact.

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 empty schema and minimal annotations, the description covers the core behavior but lacks context about how it relates to sibling tools (e.g., whether it requires a plan), what 'optional save' means, and what happens on pre-check failure. It is minimally viable but not complete for an execution tool.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately avoids inventing parameter details, and no parameter documentation is needed.

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 uses a specific action verb 'Execute' and clearly identifies the target as 'scene mutations', with qualifiers (pre-check, post-verify, optional save) that help distinguish it from planning or verification tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like scene_change_plan or verify_after_change. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or recommended workflow context, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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