parallax_manage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal core actions (scaffolding modifies the scene tree; get_parallax_info inspects) and the canonical call shape, including the flat-parameter compatibility alias. It does not mention side effects beyond scaffolding, permissions, or failure/return behavior, though the output schema can cover returns.

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 organized as a compact operation list with signature-style parameter lists and one explanatory sentence each, followed by a single necessary call-shape note. There is no filler, repetition, or preamble.

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 dispatch tool with a generic schema, the description covers all operations, their parameters, defaults, and the request envelope. It is slightly thin on path semantics and how this tool relates to sibling scene/node creation tools, but the output schema exists for return values and the op summaries make most calls unambiguous.

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 input schema only defines the opaque op/params/session_id envelope with 0% description coverage, so parameter semantics depend entirely on the description. The description compensates fully by listing every operation's named parameters with defaults and a one-line meaning, e.g. scroll_scale=[1.0,1.0], repeat_size=[0.0,0.0], layer=1, follow_viewport=False, is_2d=True, rect_size=[100.0,100.0].

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 the domain 'Parallax and Canvas Layer Management' and enumerates four concrete operations, each with a clear verb-object pair: 'Scaffold a Parallax2D node', 'Scaffold a CanvasLayer node', 'Scaffold a VisibleOnScreenNotifier2D or 3D node', and 'Inspect properties'. This is significantly more specific than the bare tool name and lets an agent identify what the tool owns.

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 per-operation sentences imply when each op should be used, and the op names are self-descriptive, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over sibling tools such as node_create or viewport_manage, nor does it give explicit exclusions. Guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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