godot_scene_patch

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full load. It does disclose the most important behavioral fact: dry_run defaults to true, so the safe path is the default and an agent must opt in to mutation. However it is silent on what persistence means, whether the write is atomic/reversible, what 'controlled' enforces, and whether a running editor conflicts.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the action and mode, plus the dry-run default appended where it matters most. No filler, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

A five-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage needs far more: parameter formats, dry-run response shape, and write-confirmation semantics are all missing. The single sentence is nowhere near sufficient for an agent to call this correctly.

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% and all five parameters are bare typed fields with no docs. The description explains only dry_run (its default), leaving path, node, property, and value — including expected formats such as a NodePath expression or property string — completely undefined.

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?

A specific verb pair (preview/apply) acting on a specific resource (a scene property change), with the scope qualifier 'one controlled' signalling a single-atom mutation. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the inspect/validate siblings, but the write-vs-read distinction is inferable.

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 mention of preview vs apply implies the two usage modes, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. scene must exist / be closed), and no pointer to godot_scene_inspect or godot_validate_scene as the read-only alternative.

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