editor_create_scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'create and open,' without mentioning potential side effects (e.g., file overwriting), prerequisites (e.g., editor running), or defaults for root_type and root_name. The description is too sparse to inform the agent of important behavioral implications.

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, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no fluff or redundant information. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning every word.

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 relative complexity (creating and opening a scene), the description is severely under-specified. It does not explain return behavior, the effect of root_type and root_name, whether existing scenes are overwritten, or what 'open' entails. No output schema exists, so the description must carry this burden, and it does not.

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 only 33% (path is described, root_name and root_type have no descriptions). The tool description does not compensate by explaining these parameters or their interplay. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving two of three parameters semantically opaque.

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 action ('Create and open') and resource ('a new scene in the editor'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like create_scene or edit_scene, so it lacks full differentiation. It is precise but not unique.

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 implies when the tool should be used: when you want to create a scene and have it opened in the editor. There are no explicit alternatives, exclusions, or guidance on choosing between this and similar tools like create_scene. The implied usage is present but not elaborated.

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