godot_add_primitive_mesh

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 'Adds' a MeshInstance3D, implying a write operation that modifies a scene file, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether it requires specific permissions, if changes are reversible, potential side effects (e.g., scene corruption), or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 action ('Add a MeshInstance3D') and lists mesh types without unnecessary elaboration. It avoids redundancy but could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating purpose from mesh examples).

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 (8 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits, error conditions, return values, or how it integrates with the Godot workflow. For a tool that modifies scene files, this leaves too many unknowns for reliable agent 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 already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it mentions 'built-in PrimitiveMesh resource' and lists mesh types, which the schema also covers for 'mesh_type'. No additional syntax, format details, or usage examples are provided. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does 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 tool adds a MeshInstance3D with a built-in PrimitiveMesh resource, specifying the verb ('Add') and resource ('MeshInstance3D with a built-in PrimitiveMesh'). It lists specific mesh types, making the purpose concrete. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'godot_add_node' or 'godot_edit_primitive_mesh', which could handle similar operations.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it compares to siblings like 'godot_add_node' (for generic nodes) or 'godot_edit_primitive_mesh' (for modifying existing meshes). This leaves the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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