scene_manage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does well: it discloses that create writes the initial root immediately but later mutations remain in editor memory until scene_save or save_as, that save_as writes to a new path, and that get_roots flags the edited scene. It also documents the canonical call shape and the flat-parameter compatibility alias.

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 well structured: a one-line summary, a resource-form note, a concise list of ops, and then call-shape details. Each section earns its place and there is no redundant restating of schema fields.

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 multi-op authoring tool with no annotations, the description covers the key operational differences, persistence behavior, and call shape. It does not discuss edge cases such as overwrite behavior when saving to an existing path or invalid root_type values, but the output schema covers return expectations.

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 0%, so the description compensates by defining create(path, root_type='Node3D', root_name=''), explaining root_name defaults to filename basename, and listing save_as(path) and get_roots(). session_id is not semantically explained, but the core parameters are well covered.

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 opens with 'Scene authoring (create, save_as, list open roots)', which names specific verbs and the resource domain, and each operation is individually explained. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly compare itself to closely related siblings like scene_save or scene_open.

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 gives one concrete usage exclusion: 'prefer for active-session reads' for the godot://scene/current and godot://scene/hierarchy resource forms. It does not explicitly explain when to choose scene_manage over scene_save or scene_open, so guidance is present but not fully comprehensive.

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