scene_reset

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

The annotation already marks the tool as destructive, and the description adds value by specifying what is destroyed: units, renderer, and custom settings. This clearly conveys a full factory reset rather than a partial scene operation. There is no contradiction between the description and 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 text is brief and front-loaded with the core warning. The Chinese and English versions are exact duplicates, which is acceptable for a bilingual tool but adds minor redundancy for an English-only agent.

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?

With zero parameters, a destructive annotation, and no output schema, this description still covers everything essential: what operation is performed and what data is lost. It is sufficiently complete for safe selection and invocation.

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 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter meaning to add beyond the schema. The baseline of 4 fits because the no-parameter contract is simple and the description reinforces that the reset is unconditional.

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 identifies the action ('Reset') and the resource ('3ds Max to factory state'), and enumerates the affected scope: units, renderer, and custom settings. This distinguishes it from siblings like scene_new, scene_save, or reset_transform.

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 intended use is implied by the operation name and the 'factory state' wording, but no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this over alternatives such as scene_new, undo_last, or reset_transform. No exclusion or alternative routing is stated.

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