add_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the intended action and gives no information about side effects, such as whether the scene file is modified on disk, whether the editor or running project updates immediately, how parentNodePath affects placement, or what errors may occur.

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 short sentence that communicates the core purpose without any filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 tool has six parameters, including a nested properties object, no output schema, and no annotations. The description only captures the high-level intent and leaves out important operational details such as required editor state, default placement behavior when parentNodePath is omitted, persistence semantics, and result/error feedback. This is inadequate for a tool an agent must invoke reliably.

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 input schema already explains all six parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as the relationship between parentNodePath and the scene root or how the optional properties object is applied. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the necessary work.

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 states a specific verb ('Add'), a specific resource ('a node'), and the target context ('an existing scene'). This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like create_scene, which creates scenes rather than modifying existing ones, and save_scene, which handles persistence.

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 phrase 'existing scene' provides some contextual guidance, implying this tool should be used when a scene already exists rather than when creating a new scene. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as whether the project must be open in the Godot editor.

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