godot_create_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states what the tool does, not how it behaves. It doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires Godot installation, what happens with invalid inputs, whether it validates the project structure, or what happens when set_as_main_scene=true. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but provides minimal behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, zero waste. Every word earns its place by specifying creation, saving, and the two key characteristics (filename normalization and root node naming).

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 7-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about behavioral characteristics, error handling, and what constitutes successful execution. Given the complexity (scene creation with multiple configuration options), more completeness would be expected.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema - it mentions 'normalized Godot-style filename' which relates to scene_name parameter processing, but doesn't explain what 'normalized' means or provide additional parameter context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Create and save a new scene') and specifies key characteristics ('normalized Godot-style filename and root node name'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like godot_edit_scene (editing existing) and godot_create_project (project-level creation) by focusing on scene creation with specific formatting requirements.

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 implies usage when creating new Godot scenes with proper naming conventions, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like godot_create_project for project creation or godot_edit_scene for modifying existing scenes. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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