scene_manage

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

The description details each operation's behavior (e.g., create opens new scene, save_as saves to new path, get_roots lists with flag). However, it does not cover error handling, permissions, or side effects like overwriting files. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and could be more comprehensive.

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 well-organized with sections for resource forms and ops. It is concise but includes necessary details. Minor redundancy in stating 'create, save_as, list open roots' twice.

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 tool's multi-operation nature and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the purpose and parameters adequately. It could be improved by mentioning possible errors or prerequisites, but it is sufficient for agent understanding.

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 coverage, the description adds significant value by explaining the op enum and the expected parameters for each operation (e.g., path, root_type, root_name for create). It clarifies defaults and behavior, though session_id is left undocumented.

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 it handles scene authoring with three specific operations: create, save_as, and get_roots. It distinguishes from siblings like scene_open and scene_get_hierarchy by covering additional capabilities.

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?

It mentions that resource forms are preferred for active-session reads, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like node_create or scene_save. The context of multiple operations is implied but not fully elaborated.

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