scene_add_respawn_point

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: the revive flow, falling out of the world, addition to level settings and the player template list, and graph-controlled activation/deactivation. It does not explicitly describe overwrite behavior, reversibility, or permission requirements, but the destructiveHint=true annotation already flags mutation risk.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description is overlong and includes extensive game-system detail and API function names that are not necessary for invoking this specific tool. Much of the latter half does not earn its place in a tool description.

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 provides rich domain context for a complex mutation tool and covers the core revive behavior. However, with six undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only broad annotations, it still omits important invocation details such as mapPath, outputName, name semantics, and explicit sibling alternatives.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains position, rotation, and point (id or name of a preset point), but it leaves name, mapPath, and outputName undocumented, even though the schema has six parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a respawn point (复苏点) in a copy of a save: where a character that went down comes back.' It clarifies the point's gameplay role and distinguishes position-based vs preset-point-based creation, but it does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings such as scene_add_preset_point or scene_set_revive.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Without a respawn point there is nowhere to come back to' and by the instruction to provide either position/rotation or point. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of related siblings like scene_add_preset_point, scene_set_spawn, or scene_set_revive, and no when-not guidance.

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