add_node

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 says 'Adds', which implies a mutation, but does not mention side effects like whether the scene file is saved to disk, what happens if the parent path doesn't exist, or any failure behavior. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the primary action and the key special case efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain how properties or script_path are applied, what happens to the scene after the node is added, or how it fits with sibling tools. An agent has to infer too much to call it 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?

The description mentions 'use "." for the scene root', but this is already covered in the schema's parent_path description. It adds no meaning for name, scene_path, project_path, or the interplay between properties and script_path. With schema coverage at 57%, the description should compensate for undocumented parameters but fails to do so.

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 a specific verb ('Adds'), resource ('a child node to an existing scene'), and location ('parent path'), making the core operation unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like editor_add_node, so it does not fully satisfy the 'distinguishes from siblings' bar.

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 phrase 'existing scene' implies this tool is for modifying existing scenes rather than creating new ones, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or reference to alternatives such as editor_add_node. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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