instantiate_scene

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to state this is a write operation. It adds the context that the operation creates a child instance, but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites beyond that. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a helpful example without extraneous detail. It earns its place efficiently.

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 six parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., whether the project must be open), return values, or error conditions. While the schema and example cover much, the added context is thin for the complexity involved.

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%, with all parameters documented. The tool description adds little beyond what the schema already provides, such as clarifying the relationship between parent and child scene paths. This matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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: 'Add a scene as a child instance of another scene,' with a concrete example. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_scene or add_node by focusing on instantiating an existing scene as a child.

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 example ('spawn a player scene inside a level') implies a common use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks the 'use X instead' clarity seen in high-scoring tools.

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