Node Create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it discloses the core mutation (node is created and added to a parent), the PackedScene path, and the precedence rule that scene_path overrides type. It does not go into side effects such as scene dirty state, undo behavior, or required scene-open prerequisites, but it is substantially more transparent than a bare mutation statement.

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 short, front-loaded with the key action, and organized into a summary plus a detail sentence. The only minor wart is the redundancy between 'Create (spawn)' and 'Creates a node' in the following sentence.

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 tool with complete schema descriptions and an output schema, the combined definition covers all parameters, both creation modes, parent-relative placement, and the scene guard parameter. It does not explicitly state prerequisites such as having an edited scene open, but the schema and output schema largely fill the remaining context, so it is close to complete.

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?

All six parameters already have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by stating that type and scene_path are mutually exclusive and that scene_path wins when both are present; it also clarifies that the node is added to the parent. It doesn't add constraints on node class names or path formats.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Create (spawn) a new node in the scene tree.' It then gives the two creation modes (type-based node vs PackedScene instantiation), making it clearly distinct from sibling inspection/manipulation tools like node_find and node_manage.

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 opening sentence clearly signals the intended use case: creating/spawning nodes in the scene tree. It also explains the two mutually exclusive construction modes (type vs scene_path), which guides call configuration. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or list when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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