rupa_adegan_baru

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive, and the description adds the key behavioral detail that it overwrites 'adegan ruang ini' (this room's scene). It also explains that the scene is data and can be inspected, compared, versioned, and composed, which adds useful context beyond the annotations.

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 short and front-loaded, with the action and overwrite consequence in the first sentence. The second sentence about scene-as-data is slightly philosophical but reinforces the data-centric nature of the operation, so it earns a 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?

Given two optional parameters, full schema coverage, and a destructive annotation, the description covers the core operational facts: what is created, what is overwritten, and the data-oriented nature of scenes. It does not discuss return values or recovery, but no output schema exists and the destructive annotation already signals caution.

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 100%, and both parameters ('nama' and 'ruang') already have meaningful descriptions explaining their purpose. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific action ('Mulai adegan KOSONG') and a specific resource: an empty but valid scene containing camera, environment light, and sun. It also explicitly notes that it overwrites the current room's scene, which distinguishes it from sibling tools that add or modify individual elements.

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 clear context: use this tool to start a fresh, valid scene in a room, with the important consequence that it overwrites the existing scene. It does not name alternatives or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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