instance_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It mentions 'Add' but doesn't disclose that this modifies a scene file, what side effects occur (e.g., file I/O), or whether it requires write permissions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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 single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. There is no wasted text, but it is brief to the point of omitting helpful context, which prevents a score of 5.

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?

With 5 parameters, 3 required, and no output schema, the description should provide more context about expected outcomes, return values, or common pitfalls. It lacks any information on what happens after execution or limitations, making it incomplete for effective use.

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 documentation coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described in the input schema. The description adds no extra meaning or context to the parameters themselves, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas. It does not highlight which parameters are critical or how they interact.

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 verb 'Add' and the resource 'another scene as an instanced child inside a scene', with the clarifying note '(composition / prefabs)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'add_node' or 'create_scene', making its specific purpose unmistakable.

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 its many siblings (e.g., 'add_node', 'create_scene', 'reparent_node'). It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical workflows, or conditions that would favor instancing over other operations.

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