apply_scene_patch

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It indicates a bypass of review staging but lacks details on side effects, validation, undo capability, or safety implications. This is insufficient for a mutation tool that applies patches directly.

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 one clear, front-loaded sentence that efficiently expresses the core purpose. It is not bloated, though it could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (large nested schema), absence of annotations, and no parameter descriptions, a single sentence is inadequate. Major gaps include patch structure, fingerprint validation, the meaning of 'white-listed', and workflow integration with sibling tools.

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 0% and the description provides zero information about the patch parameter or instance_id. The complex ScenePatch schema is left entirely self-documenting, leaving the agent without semantic guidance for constructing valid inputs.

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 action ('apply'), the resource ('a white-listed patch'), and the key differentiator ('without Blender review staging'), effectively distinguishing it from the staged patch workflow represented by sibling tools.

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 phrase 'power-user escape hatch' implies an alternative to the normal staging workflow, but it does not explicitly name alternatives (like stage_scene_patch) or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.

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