create_scene

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context beyond them: the 100-node cap, cross-reference ordering rules, and notably the atomicity guarantee ('Newly created nodes are cleaned up on failure'). It does not disclose auth/permission needs or what happens on partial success beyond cleanup.

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?

Four compact sentences, each carrying a distinct rule, with the batch limit and ref semantics front-loaded. No filler or repetition of name/title.

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 destructive batch-creation tool with no output schema, the description covers input rules well but never says what is returned (e.g. created node IDs/refs) so an agent cannot confidently chain follow-up calls. No mention of permissions or rate considerations either.

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 carry semantic load. It does explain the two trickiest relationships (ref uniqueness, parentRef ordering, parentId for root nodes) and notes that props accept style-guide IDs, but the ~30 props fields are left entirely to the schema's enums and types.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create ... native nodes') plus a distinguishing scope ('up to 100 ... in one call'), which separates it from the single-node sibling create_node. The parenthetical '(screens or components)' clarifies what native nodes are.

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?

Gives concrete usage constraints: refs must be unique, parentRef must point to an earlier FRAME/COMPONENT node in the same call, and root nodes use parentId or the current page. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over create_node or update_node, so guidance is strong but lacks alternative routing.

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