add_node

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the core mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds no further behavioral detail: it does not say whether the scene is saved automatically, what happens if the node name already exists, how parentNodePath defaults, or how properties are applied.

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 zero wasted words. Its brevity is the main issue, but that is better captured as a completeness gap than as a conciseness failure.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with nested properties, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is far too thin. It omits parent-node behavior, save semantics, failure modes, and the distinction from tools like instance_scene and duplicate_node.

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 all six parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, such as the default parent or the property value format, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ("Add a node") and scope ("to an existing scene"). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as instance_scene, duplicate_node, create_scene, or modify_scene.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites, exclusions, or follow-up requirements. The phrase "existing scene" weakly implies that the scene must already be loaded or present, but no explicit usage conditions are given.

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