scenes

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint: true, and the description lists destructive actions like delete. It adds context on path requirements and action specifics, though does not detail side effects beyond what is obvious from CRUD.

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 concise: one-line summary, a table-like list of actions, and a crucial note on path format. Every sentence earns its place without extraneous text.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, multiple actions) and no output schema, the description covers all actions, parameter roles, and path conventions. It also references a sibling tool for node editing, providing adequate 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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by mapping parameters to actions and clarifying path format (avoiding res:// prefix), which goes beyond the schema's generic 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 explicitly states 'Scene file (.tscn) CRUD' and lists all actions (create, list, info, delete, duplicate, set_main). It clearly distinguishes from the sibling 'nodes' tool by directing node editing elsewhere.

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 a clear breakdown of actions with required and optional parameters, plus a note on path format. It lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives beyond mentioning the nodes tool, but the structure is helpful.

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