create_scene

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

Annotations establish this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it creates an empty scene, returns the scene record, and does not change the current scene. This goes beyond the annotation flags, though it could mention failure modes or permissions.

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?

Three compact sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded, then the return value and non-switching behavior are stated, and finally the alternative is given. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple create tool with one optional parameter and annotations covering side-effect flags, the description fully covers what happens, what is returned, and how to open the new scene. No critical operational details are 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?

The schema already fully documents the single optional 'name' parameter with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description adds no extra semantics beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

States a specific verb ('create'), resource ('new empty scene'), and scope ('current project/branch'). Explicitly differentiates from load_scene and duplicate_scene with concrete conditions, so an agent can tell them apart without opening other schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: creates a scene but does not switch to it, directing the agent to load_scene for opening. Also provides a clear 'When NOT to use' case and names the alternative duplicate_scene for copying an existing scene.

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