scene_merge

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

The description adds the useful behavior that it does not clear existing objects, which is not directly in the annotations. However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting objects with matching names, material handling, or undo behavior. Since annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, the description adds only marginal value beyond that.

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 extremely concise: a single bilingual sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It contains no filler and directly states the primary behavior, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 merge operation, the description is minimal but covers the essential action and the key non-destructive behavior (not clearing). It does not explain return values, conflict resolution, or whether the operation is undoable, but given the annotations and schema, it is adequately complete for basic usage.

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 each parameter (path, quiet, objects) already has a clear description. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it relies on the schema for this dimension.

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 tool merges contents of another .max file into the current scene without clearing it, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'import_merge_scene', which likely performs a similar operation, so it stops short of full distinction.

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 'import_merge_scene' or other scene operations. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about the appropriate scenario, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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