release_scene

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

The description directly contradicts the readOnlyHint=true annotation: releasing and discarding the hold buffer is a state-changing action, not a read-only one. Although the description usefully discloses irreversibility, the conflict with the annotation is a serious defect.

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 text is short, direct, and contains no extra fluff. It loses one point because the same message is duplicated in Chinese and English, which adds length without adding information.

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 simple zero-parameter command, the core behavior and irreversibility are clearly stated. It could be more complete by referencing the hold/fetch workflow and describing return or error behavior when no hold buffer exists, but the low complexity makes the description largely sufficient.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema fully captures that. With no parameters to document, the description has nothing meaningful to add; the baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool 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 names a concrete action and resource ('release the hold buffer'), states the resulting state ('accept the current scene'), and gives the irreversible consequence ('can no longer be fetched back'). This clearly distinguishes it from the related hold_scene/fetch_scene siblings.

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 consequence 'so it can no longer be fetched back' implies the use case of discarding a held snapshot, but the description never explicitly states when to call it, when not to, or how it fits with hold_scene and fetch_scene. Guidance is implied rather than stated.

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