update_3d_scene

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

There is a direct contradiction with annotations. The description says 'Omitted overlays/vectors are removed' and 'Replace the existing scene's geometry', which are destructive actions, yet annotations declare destructiveHint=false. This is a serious inconsistency that can mislead an agent into believing the tool is non-destructive. The description also does not disclose other behavioral aspects like side effects on scene state, making it unreliable.

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 two sentences with no superfluous wording. It front-loads the core action in the first sentence and adds viewer context in the second. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description fails to adequately cover the tool's behavior. The contradiction with annotations undermines trust, and parameter semantics are only partially explained. For a tool with 6 parameters and a clear destructive action, the description is not complete enough for safe and 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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description must explain parameter semantics. It implicitly identifies points as geometry and vectors as overlays, and scene_id as the target scene. However, it does not explain colors, target, or vector_scale. With 6 parameters and no schema descriptions, this partial coverage is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct calls for all parameters.

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 states a specific verb ('Replace') and resource ('the existing scene's geometry') and clarifies what is preserved ('camera') and what happens to omitted overlays/vectors ('removed'). It distinguishes from siblings like transform_3d_object or set_3d_object by focusing on geometry replacement. However, it does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, so it falls just 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 description provides some usage context: it mentions reusing the active inline viewer or browser fallback, which implies when this tool can be used. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or point to alternatives. Given the many sibling tools, clearer routing would be helpful, but the purpose and scope are clear enough for an agent to infer typical use.

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