create_scene

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not expected to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations by stating that a new scene is created and that the response includes the scene's id. This gives the agent a clear picture of the tool's observable effect and return value.

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 three compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action and return value, then gives the input alternatives, then the source of valid codes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 create operation with no output schema, the description adequately explains the purpose, return value, valid input modes, and where to fetch allowed codes. It is slightly incomplete on how print_setting interacts with the two input modes, but the schema default and property name make this non-blocking for an agent.

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?

The schema covers parameter formats, but the description adds crucial relational semantics: the either/or grouping between the code-based inputs and the fps_file. It also clarifies that machine_type and material_code values must not be guessed and should come from the listed sibling tools. The optional print_setting parameter is not mentioned, but the schema provides its default, so the gap is minor.

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 states a specific action ('Create a new scene') on a clear resource ('scene for a printer and material') and names the return value. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_scenes, get_scene, update_scene, and delete_scene without requiring an agent to infer the tool's purpose.

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 gives explicit input-mode guidance ('EITHER machine_type + material_code + layer_thickness_mm OR the absolute path of a .fps print-settings file') and tells the agent where to obtain valid values ('Get valid codes from list_printer_types and list_materials; never guess them'). It does not explicitly compare against update_scene or explain when to prefer one input mode over the other, so it stops short of a 5.

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