node_manage

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that delete is undoable, cannot delete scene root, duplicate cannot duplicate root, rename has naming rules, move/reparent have limitations, and the scene_file guard causes EDITED_SCENE_MISMATCH. It does not mention permissions, rate limits, or side effects beyond those listed.

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 well-structured with sections (resource forms, ops) and uses bullet points for clarity. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value. Front-loading the purpose and then listing ops makes it 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?

Despite the complexity of 9 operations and multiple parameters, the description covers each op's behavior, constraints, error conditions (cannot delete root, scene_file mismatch), and mentions alternative resource forms. An output schema exists but its details are not provided; the description does not need to explain return values. The tool is fully described for an AI agent to use correctly.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates by documenting each operation's required parameters (path, scene_file, new_name, etc.) in clear bullet points. It tells the agent exactly what keys to include in the params object, which is essential since the schema only defines a generic params object.

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 explicitly states 'Node tree manipulation' and lists all supported operations (delete, duplicate, rename, reorder, reparent, groups, hierarchy reads), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like node_create, node_find, and scene_get_hierarchy.

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 provides clear context: it identifies when to prefer resource forms ('prefer for active-session reads'), lists each operation's constraints, and mentions the scene_file guard. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons to specific siblings beyond the resource form note.

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