godot_edit_scene

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 mentions the tool can 'delete' nodes, implying destructive behavior, but doesn't specify if changes are reversible, what permissions are needed, or how errors are handled. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 and enumerates the key actions without any wasted words. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool's functionality.

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 operations, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and scope well, but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, side effects, or return values, which are crucial for a tool that modifies scene data.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by listing the types of modifications (transform, rename, reparent, delete), which loosely maps to some parameters, but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. 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 specific action ('Modify an existing node'), the resource ('in a saved scene'), and the scope of modifications ('updating its transform, renaming it, reparenting it, or deleting it'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like godot_add_node (adds new nodes) and godot_update_node_transform (only updates transform).

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 context by specifying it's for modifying 'an existing node in a saved scene,' which helps differentiate from creation tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives like godot_update_node_transform for transform-only updates, leaving some ambiguity.

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