Scene Review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether approval is irreversible, what rejecting does to the scene or downstream rendering, whether a reason is required for rejection, or what permissions/state preconditions are needed. For a mutation-style decision tool, this is a significant 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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but for a four-parameter mutation tool with no annotation coverage it is under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But with zero annotation coverage and zero parameter descriptions, the definition leaves out critical context about state transitions, rejection consequences, and parameter usage, which an agent needs before invoking this 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only alludes to the decision parameter via 'approve or reject'. It adds no meaning for project_id, scene_id, or reason, such as whether reason is required on rejection or how scene_id relates to project_id.

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 states a specific action pair (approve or reject) on a specific resource (a previewed scene), and the word 'previewed' ties it to the preview/render workflow rather than to siblings like scene_write or scene_list. It is clear enough to distinguish this from most siblings, though it does not name a direct alternative.

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?

'Previewed scene' implies this should be used after scene_render_preview, giving some contextual usage guidance. However, there is no explicit when/when-not statement, no mention of prerequisites, and no direct routing to or from sibling tools.

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