delete_scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a notable behavior (deleting the .import sidecar), which adds value. However, it does not mention that deletion is irreversible, whether permissions are needed, or if the scene must be closed, so transparency is partial.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core action and a key side effect without any extraneous words. It is highly concise and well-structured.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and the sidecar detail, but lacks usage context, path semantics, and consequences. It is minimally complete but leaves important gaps for an AI agent to safely invoke it.

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 only defines 'path' as a string, and the description does not elaborate on what path format is expected (absolute vs. project-relative, with/without extension). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should compensate but does not provide this needed clarity.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a scene file from disk') with a specific detail ('.import sidecar') that distinguishes it from other delete tools like delete_node or remove_animation. It is a specific verb+resource description.

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 such as delete_node or remove_autoload. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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