Create 3D scene

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

The description discloses detailed behavioral traits: what nodes are created (baseCOMP with Geometry, Camera, Light, Render TOP, Null), options like GPU instancing with scale_variation and spin, exposed controls (RotateY, Zoom), and return value details (summary plus JSON block with paths, errors, warnings, preview image). This goes well beyond the minimal annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and adds meaningful context about side effects and output.

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 information-dense and well-structured, starting with the core action, then optional behaviors, usage suggestion, alternatives, and return format. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but every sentence adds value; no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description completely covers the tool's purpose, usage, parameters, side effects, alternatives, and return value in the absence of an output schema. It even informs about node errors and warnings in the return, making it self-sufficient for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with each parameter already having descriptions. The description adds conceptual cohesion by explaining how instances, scale_variation, and spin interact in the scene, and how expose_controls relates to the knobs. While it doesn't add new syntax details, it provides helpful context that ties the parameters together.

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 explicitly states the tool 'Build a renderable 3D scene' and enumerates the exact composition: Geometry COMP, Camera, Light, Render TOP, output as Null. It also names the primitive choices and differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly mentioning create_3d_audio_reactive and create_pbr_scene as alternatives for different use cases.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: it positions the tool as 'The starting point for 3D visuals' and recommends binding RotateY to tempo/audio. It explicitly states 'Use create_3d_audio_reactive instead when you want the geometry driven by sound, or create_pbr_scene for physically-based materials,' giving direct alternative conditions.

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