Csg Manage

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that all write ops are undoable via EditorUndoRedoManager, that sibling CSG shapes combine automatically, and that size/position/material are set separately. It also outlines return values for each op. It does not mention failure modes or prerequisites like needing an open scene (though 'currently edited scene' implies it). Strong transparency for a mutating tool.

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 structured with a brief intro, a pointer to related tools, and a bulleted list of ops with parameter details and returns. Every sentence provides value: undoability, grouping behavior, cross-tool hints, and op signatures. It is long but well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose. No fluff.

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 tool with two sub-operations, multiple parameters, and an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary context: what it does, how to invoke it (including call shape), parameter enums and defaults, return values, and cross-references to other tools for node properties. It even explains the automatic combination behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates. It documents every parameter for both ops: parent_path (empty = root), name, shape (with enum values), operation (with enum values), and path. It also explains the canonical call shape and flat-parameter alias. This goes far beyond the minimal schema, giving the agent all needed parameter semantics.

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 ('authoring') and resource (CSG shapes), and enumerates the two concrete operations (csg_create, csg_set_operation). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like node_create and scene_manage by focusing on boolean-shape creation and operation setting. The purpose is unmistakable.

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 clear context on when to use this tool (for CSG authoring) and even routes follow-up property setting to node_set_property / material_manage. It also clarifies the automatic combination behavior of sibling CSG shapes and suggests CSGCombiner3D for explicit grouping. However, it does not explicitly state when *not* to use this tool (e.g., 'for regular nodes use node_create'), leaving some inference to the agent. Lacks explicit exclusions, hence 4.

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