scene-update-plain-objects

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the full burden. It only says 'update', but fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as mutation effects, permissions, or error handling. This is inadequate for a mutation tool.

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 extremely concise, using only one sentence with no extraneous text. While it is efficient, it lacks structure (e.g., no bullet points or sections) and may be too minimal.

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 lack of output schema, annotations, and usage guidance, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior, error cases, or effects. It does not cover what happens if objects do not exist or what the response looks like.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond the schema. With schema description coverage reported at 50%, the tool description does not compensate for missing parameter details. However, the schema itself partially describes parameters, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it updates multiple plain objects, using a specific verb-resource combo. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'scene-update-game-objects' or 'scene-add-plain-objects', which could lead to confusion.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., adding vs. updating), nor on prerequisites or context. The description is purely functional.

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