modify_scene_settings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Modify' implies a mutation operation, but the description fails to disclose critical behavioral traits: it does not state whether this requires specific permissions, whether changes are reversible, what happens to unspecified settings (partial updates vs. overwrites), or any side effects like performance impacts. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a severe gap.

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—a single three-word phrase—with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and efficiently states the core action. While brevity can indicate under-specification, here it reflects structural efficiency without redundancy.

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 (mutating scene settings with many nested parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'scene settings' encompass, the scope of modification, or the return behavior. The rich input schema helps, but the description fails to provide necessary context for safe and effective use, especially for a mutation tool.

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 what the input schema provides. However, schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions for all nested properties (e.g., gravity, ambientBake, fog). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description. The description does not compensate but doesn't need to, as the schema is comprehensive.

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 'Modify the scene settings' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name. It provides a generic verb ('modify') and resource ('scene settings') but lacks specificity about what scene settings are or what modification entails. Compared to sibling tools like 'query_scene_settings' (which likely reads settings) and 'modify_entities' (which modifies entities rather than settings), it fails to clearly differentiate its purpose beyond the obvious.

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 does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing scene), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'query_scene_settings' (for reading) or 'modify_entities' (for entity-level changes). Without any usage context, an agent must infer when this tool is appropriate, which is insufficient.

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