entry_scene

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the whole disclosure burden, and it does add one meaningful stateful trait: adds are scoped to the currently selected scene. It is silent on destructive behavior (is delete reversible? what happens to objects inside a deleted scene?), on whether select mutates global editor state, and on any return value or failure mode.

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 sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the action grammar in a compact signature form before the stateful caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs to select an action and its arguments.

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?

For a five-action mutation tool with zero annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the definition covers action-to-parameter mapping and the selected-scene side effect well. It is not complete enough regarding delete irreversibility, scene-name resolution, and return values, all of which the structured fields leave empty.

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, and it largely does by mapping each action to its required arguments (add→name, rename→scene+name, select/delete→scene, move→scene+index). It does not explain the meaning or bounds of index (ordering, valid range, out-of-range behavior) or what a scene name must match, so a gap remains for the highest-risk parameter.

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 names the resource (장면, scene) and enumerates every supported action with its signature: add(name), rename(scene,name), select(scene), delete(scene), move(scene,index). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling entry_add_object by stating that objects go to the currently selected scene and directing the agent to the sibling's scene argument otherwise.

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 gives explicit routing for the add case: use entry_add_object's scene argument instead of this tool when targeting a non-selected scene, which is a genuine when-not statement naming the alternative. It does not say when an agent should prefer select versus rename versus move, leaving per-action selection to inference, so it falls short of full 5-level guidance.

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