instance_scene

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds genuinely new context: the save is atomic, dryRun is supported for previewing, expectedHash guards against stale state, and recursive dependencies are rejected. It stops short of 5 because permission requirements and any limits on the target parent are unstated.

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?

Two tight sentences, with the core action and the atomic-save behavior front-loaded. Every clause carries information and there is no filler.

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 values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 7-parameter mutation tool with 14% schema coverage, the description should disambiguate instanceScenePath from scenePath and clarify the newName/parent relationship; that gap keeps it at adequate rather than complete.

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 only 14% (just nodePath), so the description carries weight here. It usefully clarifies dryRun and expectedHash, but leaves instanceScenePath versus scenePath, newName, and projectPath unexplained, which are exactly the ambiguities an agent would hit.

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 ('Instance a saved scene under a local parent') plus the atomic-save outcome, which clearly separates it from create_scene, save_scene, and duplicate_node. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling, so it stops 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 mention of dryRun and expectedHash hints at preview/drift-check workflows, and 'refuses recursive dependencies' implies a constraint. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative for related tasks like create_scene or duplicate_node.

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