Create RayTK scene

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds practical behavioral context: it copies masters at runtime, requires RayTK to be loaded, and 'fails forward' with guidance when the library is absent. This is useful and non-contradictory. It doesn't cover every side effect, but annotations already handle the safety profile.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with no filler. Each sentence carries distinct value: what is built, how it relates to a sibling, and prerequisites/failure behavior. Front-loaded with the primary action and chain.

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 no output schema, the description covers prerequisites (RayTK staged + loaded), version compatibility (RayTK 0.46 requires TD 2025.30770+), failure behavior ('fails forward' guidance), and the alternative tool. For a creation tool with rich schema coverage, this is complete.

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% and every parameter has a description. The description additionally maps 'optional flags union a second SDF, insert an inline basicMat, and add an explicit lookAtCamera / pointLight' to the union_with, material, add_camera, and add_light parameters, enriching the node-graph context beyond the raw schema.

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 provides a specific verb ('Build') and resource ('minimal renderable RayTK node graph') with an explicit node chain (sphereSdf → raymarchRender3D → Null TOP). It also differentiates from the sibling create_raymarch_scene by calling itself the 'node-graph-native complement' to that lightweight GLSL path.

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 clearly situates when this tool is appropriate (node-graph-native RayTK approach, in contrast to create_raymarch_scene's lightweight GLSL path) and gives a concrete prerequisite ('Requires the RayTK toolkit staged + loaded'). However, it does not explicitly state exclusions (e.g., 'don't use if you don't need RayTK masters') beyond the complement framing.

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