octane_build_scene

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions saving a manifest and queuing commands, but omits details like permissions, data persistence, error handling, or whether the operation is destructive. The agent lacks understanding of side effects.

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 a single sentence of 13 words, very concise and front-loaded with the core action. It achieves brevity but could include a bit more context without becoming verbose.

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?

The tool has a nested object parameter and an output schema, yet the description does not explain what the input should contain or what the output represents. Key information about the plan's format, manifest location, and command queueing behavior is missing.

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 0% for the only parameter 'scene_plan', and the description does not explain its structure or required fields. The parameter is an object with additionalProperties true, but the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema's minimal type and title.

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 states the tool builds a semantic scene plan, saves a manifest, and queues validated Octane commands. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling build tools like octane_build_concept or octane_build_planet_scene, but does not explicitly differentiate them.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks context, prerequisites, or conditions for use, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the generic verb 'build'.

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