stage_scene_patch

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

The description is transparent about the key behavior: it stages the patch without modifying the scene. However, it does not detail potential side effects (e.g., storing the patch, requiring permissions) or what happens to existing staged patches. Given the lack of annotations, it covers the most critical behavior but not exhaustively.

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 a single, clear sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys purpose and behavior without unnecessary detail.

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?

The description is sufficient for a basic understanding of the operation, but it omits any context about the patch structure, the meaning of 'staging', or how it relates to other tools like get_staged_patch or discard_staged_patch. While an output schema exists (so return values are not required), the description does not address prerequisites or error conditions.

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 coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any of the parameters (patch, instance_id) or the nested structure (ScenePatch, PatchOperation). With a complex schema, this omission leaves the agent without guidance on how to construct valid inputs, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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's purpose: to stage a patch in Blender for human review, explicitly noting it does not change the scene. This distinguishes it from apply_scene_patch and other 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?

It specifies when to use it (for review before applying) and highlights the non-destructive nature ('without changing the scene'), giving clear guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the context implies it is for staging rather than applying.

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