apply_scene_change

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

The description reveals important behavioral details beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation: plan_id expiration (TTL 600s), pre-check steps, optional verification via validate_references + console check, optional save, and return of a mutation summary. This transparently outlines side effects and workflow.

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 a compact, well-structured numbered list with no redundant information. Every step contributes essential context, making it easy to scan and understand.

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 tool of moderate complexity with no output schema, the description conveys the full process flow and return value. However, it lacks details on the commands parameter format and the structure of the mutation summary, which would be helpful for correct invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining plan_id (validated, expires), verify (triggers validation and console check), and save (persists the scene). However, the 'commands' parameter is only described as 'batch commands' without elaboration on its format or structure, leaving a gap.

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's purpose: executing scene mutations with pre-check, post-verify, and optional save. The numbered steps provide specificity and distinguish it from sibling tools that perform individual mutations, establishing this as a batch/plan-level 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?

The description implies a workflow: validate plan_id, execute commands, optionally verify and save. This gives clear context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., scene_change_plan for creating plans or individual mutation tools for direct edits), so guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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