instance_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about side effects: whether the target scene is written to disk or only modified in memory, whether an open editor is required, or what happens on invalid paths. Only the bare mutation intent is conveyed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the source-to-target relationship is stated up front. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a five-parameter mutation tool.

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 five-parameter mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition omits persistence/save behavior, error cases, and the meaning of an omitted nodeName. The schema covers inputs, but an agent still lacks the behavioral context needed to call this confidently.

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%, so the five parameters including sourceScene, scenePath, and parentNodePath are already documented. The description adds no extra semantics such as defaulting behavior for nodeName or path format beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb ('Instance') with a clear resource pair: a source .tscn into a target scene under a parent node. This is enough to distinguish it from create_scene (makes a new scene) and add_node (adds a non-scene node), though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 statement of when to choose this over create_scene, add_node, or duplicate_node, and no prerequisites (e.g. scene must be open/saved). The usage is only implied by the verb 'Instance'.

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