Stage Scene New

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it explains exactly what is inherited from the source (full build, people, facings, partners, floor, keep-out boxes, sky), what is copied (trees, names, cues, waypoints), and what stays with the source (takes, voice notes, snapshots). It also discloses the export side effect as a heavy job that runs immediately when export=True, and notes the delayed appearance otherwise, though it does not cover permissions or undo behavior.

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 content is relevant and front-loaded with the core concept, but the single dense paragraph uses nested jargon such as world.json, derives_from, pass_script, and build root, making it harder to parse than necessary. It earns most of its length but lacks structural clarity.

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 creation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers derivation, inheritance, copy rules, export behavior, and review guidance. The missing explanation of the `scenes` parameter is the main remaining gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains source, pass_script, and export behavior, but omits the `scenes` parameter entirely and only implicitly covers `name`; therefore it partially compensates but leaves a clear gap.

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 clearly establishes that this creates a new scene derived from an existing source, with concrete variant examples such as remodel, another era, and same place at dawn. It also distinguishes the result from a blockout-built room and references stage_scene_export, though it does not use an explicit imperative verb like "create".

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 gives useful usage context through the remodel/era/dawn examples and a review instruction to compare the variant beside its source from the same camera. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives such as stage_scene_export, stage_scene_go, or stage_scene_reload, nor does it provide exclusions.

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