add_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool adds a node but doesn't describe what happens after addition (e.g., whether the scene is automatically saved, if the node becomes active immediately, or if there are permission/validation requirements). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undocumented.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Add a node to an existing scene'). There is zero wasted verbiage or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (6 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like side effects, error conditions, or return values, leaving the agent with incomplete context for safe and effective use.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain format examples for 'nodeType' or clarify 'properties' object structure). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 ('Add a node') and the target ('to an existing scene'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'create_scene' (which creates new scenes) and 'save_scene' (which saves changes). However, it doesn't specify what types of nodes can be added beyond what the schema indicates, leaving some ambiguity about scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing scene), exclusions, or comparisons with related tools like 'create_scene' for new scenes or 'save_scene' for persisting changes. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and schema alone.

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