scene_add_preset_point

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

Annotations only declare that this is a write with destructiveHint=true; the description adds the critical qualifier that it writes a new .gil into the workspace and leaves the official save untouched, which materially changes the agent's risk assessment. It also discloses the return value (pointId) and provenance ('Verified in play on 2026-10-10'). Not a 5 because the size/limits of the new file and overwrite behavior for an existing preset name are unstated.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, then the motivation, then the side effect and return value—a sensible ordering. The single very long sentence with embedded parentheticals and Chinese gloss makes it denser than necessary, but nothing is padding.

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?

It covers purpose, side effect, and return value, which is most of what a 5-parameter mutation without an output schema needs. The gap is that two of five parameters (mapPath, outputName) are left entirely to a bare schema with no descriptions, so an agent cannot confidently supply them.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must carry the semantic load. It clarifies name, position, and rotation (and their role in graph lookups) but says nothing about mapPath or outputName, which are exactly the parameters an agent would guess wrong on.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add a named preset point ... to a copy of a save') and immediately explains what that resource is: a position and rotation readable by graphs via f.queryPresetPointPositionRotation(pointId). This is concrete enough to separate it from scene_list_preset_points or scene_set_spawn without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear rationale for when to use it ('so that places ... live in the map and not as numbers inside graphs'), which tells the agent the design intent behind choosing this tool. It does not explicitly name an alternative or a when-not-to-use case, so it falls short of a 5.

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