Multipass 3D scene (SSAO + depth)

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, open-world, non-destructive. The description adds critical wiring details (SSAO must be directly after Render, no TOP between), depth resolution behavior, and the full return payload (summary, JSON block, preview image). This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence contributes value, covering components, SSAO constraint, depth usage, instancing, and return format. While lengthy, it is justified by the multi-node complexity; minimal fluff. Could benefit from line breaks, but structure is logical.

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 complex tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the SSAO wiring constraint, depth output usage, downstream integration, and return payload. The only minor gap is an unexplained 'Zoom' control not present in the input schema, but overall it equips an agent with sufficient context.

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%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters. The description adds context like 'Exposes Spin, Zoom, and Ssao toggle' and 'GPU-instanced into a grid', but Zoom is not a schema parameter, which introduces a minor inconsistency. Overall, the description adds marginal meaning beyond the schema's per-parameter descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Build a renderable 3D scene with depth cues that read on stage' and enumerates exact components (Geometry COMP, Camera, Light, Render TOP, Null). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling create_3d_scene by adding optional SSAO and Depth TOP outputs, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 says 'like create_3d_scene but with...' which clearly positions this tool as a superset variant for depth/SSAO needs. It also names downstream consumers (create_depth_displacement/create_depth_silhouette) and notes 'no depth camera needed', providing concrete usage guidance. It does not explicitly list exclusions, but the alternatives are clear.

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