scene

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

The annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description does not go beyond the bare list of action names, so it adds no extra behavioral context. It does not explain which operations persist to disk, what effect commit has, or that some actions remove or detach nodes — the agent is left to infer the destructive nature from action names.

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 very compact and front-loaded with the 'scene operations' heading, then a categorized enumeration of actions. It is scannable and clutter-free, though the use of Chinese punctuation to chain groups makes it a little dense, and omitting some schema actions means the listing is not fully aligned with the enum.

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 dispatcher tool with 30 parameters, a 19-value action enum, nested objects, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. It does not cover all actions in the enum and does not explain the purpose or return/behavior semantics that would let an agent confidently use this tool in high-consequence scene modification scenarios.

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%, so the baseline is 3; the schema already documents per-parameter meanings and per-action notes. The tool description itself does not add semantic value for parameters — it only groups action names, which the schema enum already covers.

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 starts with '场景操作' (scene operations), making it clear this is the scene-operation dispatcher, and then groups the supported actions into categories such as read/create, nodes, save/resources, query, and instances. It is not a mere tautology because it enumerates meaningful sub-operations, though it omits some schema enum actions like open_scene, merge_scene, health_check, create_3d_node, and commit.

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 category labels, which hint at related actions, but it never says when to choose one action over another or when to prefer a sibling tool. Since the tool is an action dispatcher with more than a dozen mutually exclusive enum values, this is a significant guidance gap.

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