Create a new Godot scene file by specifying project path, save location, and root node type to build game environments.
Create a new Godot scene file
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the Godot project directory | |
| scenePath | Yes | Path where the scene file will be saved (relative to project) | |
| rootNodeType | No | Type of the root node (e.g., Node2D, Node3D) | Node2D |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a file but doesn't mention whether this is a write operation (implied), what permissions are needed, if it overwrites existing files, or what happens on failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success confirmation, error details) or critical behavioral aspects like error handling or file system impacts, leaving the agent with incomplete operational context.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without compensating value.
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 ('Create') and the resource ('new Godot scene file'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'save_scene' or 'add_node', which might have overlapping functionality in scene manipulation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'save_scene' or 'add_node'. The description lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must be open) or typical workflows, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.