manage_3d_scene_states

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

Annotations are minimal (only readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, openWorldHint), so the description carries the burden. It discloses several important behaviors: files never overwritten, max 20 states and 4 MiB each, JSON excludes geometry/playback, GLB excludes certain elements, export limit 256 MiB, and import/restore behavior. This far exceeds typical transparency.

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 long but densely packed with valuable information. It opens with the core purpose, then expands on export/import, constraints, and export_models specifics. Every sentence adds necessary detail; there's no filler. While it could benefit from bullet points, the paragraph format is efficient for the complexity.

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 complexity (7 actions, 6 params, output schema present), the description covers the essential behaviors: state saving/restoring, export/import persistence, limits, and export_models specifics. It doesn't detail return values, but the output schema handles that. Minor gaps include exact path syntax and detail parameter behavior, but these are inferable from the schema and context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains action values (save/restore/list/delete/export/import/export_models) and their nuances (e.g., export_models requires no name, restore=True applies immediately). It also clarifies path ('configured roots') and the detail parameter indirectly via the enum. Not every parameter is explicitly described, but key semantics are covered.

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 scope: saving/restoring complete scene state (camera, transforms, selection, visibility, color, opacity, presentation) and exporting/importing JSON. It distinguishes itself from siblings like manage_3d_views (camera-only) and manage_3d_selections (selection-only) by covering all aspects. The mention of export_models adds a distinct capability.

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 strong context on when to use this tool (full state management) and details specific behaviors like restore=True and export_models limitations. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state 'when not to use', but the scope is clear enough that an agent can infer when this is the appropriate tool.

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