add_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the addition operation but does not reveal whether a scene must be open, what the node's default properties are, whether the operation is destructive, or what response to expect. This is a significant gap 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 concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified: for a tool with three unillustrated parameters and no annotations, one sentence is insufficient. It is not verbose, but it is not appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

The description is incomplete for its context. There are three parameters (one required), no output schema, and no annotations. The description fails to explain how to use the parameters or what the tool's effect on the scene is beyond the obvious. It does not address edge cases like parent node validity or scene requirements.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It does not mention 'type', 'name', or 'parent' at all, leaving the agent without any semantic understanding of required values, such as what a valid 'type' might be.

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 'Add a new node to the scene' clearly identifies the verb (add) and resource (node to scene). It is unambiguous but does not differentiate from siblings like duplicate_node or create_scene, though the action is distinct enough. It lacks explicit scoping such as 'to the current scene' which would further clarity.

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 (e.g., duplicate_node, create_scene). There is no mention of prerequisites like an open scene, or when not to use it. The context is entirely absent, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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