update_scene

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating but non-destructive operation. The description adds the key behavioral guarantee that models are kept, which is valuable context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether changes are validated, whether partial updates are allowed, or what happens if an invalid material/printer combination is provided. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, lists the modifiable attributes, and includes the key non-destructive guarantee. Every word earns its place; 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and low parameter documentation, the description is somewhat thin. It covers the core purpose and the non-destructive aspect, but it does not explain parameter semantics, validation behavior, or what the response contains. Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 optional parameters, one with a special ADAPTIVE value), the description is adequate but leaves gaps that an agent would need to resolve.

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 only 20% (only scene_id has a description). The description lists the parameter concepts (printer, material, layer thickness, print setting) but does not add meaning beyond the schema's property names. It does not explain what values are valid for machine_type, material_code, print_setting, or layer_thickness_mm (e.g., the ADAPTIVE option is only in the schema, not the description). With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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 verb ('Change') and resource ('a scene'), and enumerates the exact attributes that can be changed: printer, material, layer thickness, and print setting. It also explicitly notes that models are preserved, which distinguishes it from destructive scene operations like delete_scene or replace_model. This is a clear, specific purpose statement that differentiates the tool from siblings.

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 implies usage context: use this when you need to modify scene-level print parameters without affecting models. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (e.g., update_model for model-level changes, create_scene for new scenes). The 'while keeping its models' clause provides some context but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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