Scene Write

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose notable side effects: resetting status and clearing stale artifacts. However, it omits whether existing source is overwritten, required permissions, validation behavior, and what 'stale artifacts' means.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the main action appears first and the side effects follow compactly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description gives useful side-effect context but not enough for fully safe invocation. It does not cover overwrite semantics, prerequisites, or failure behavior, though the output schema removes the need to explain return values.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only loosely maps 'scene source' to the code parameter and says nothing about project_id or scene_id. An agent is left to infer all three parameters from their names.

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 uses a specific verb (Write) and resource (scene source), and adds side-effect details (resetting status, clearing artifacts). It implicitly distinguishes scene_write from read/render siblings like scene_get and scene_render_preview, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use scene_write versus siblings, no prerequisites, and no warnings or exclusions. Use is only implied by the verb 'Write' and the mention of clearing artifacts.

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