build_character_scene

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for a write operation. It does disclose that it writes a file to output_tscn and returns metadata including the collider details, which is useful. However, it never says whether an existing .tscn is overwritten, what happens if project_root lacks project.godot, or whether validation failures abort the write.

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?

Front-loaded one-line purpose followed by a clean Args block ordered consistently with the schema. Content is dense and mostly earns its place for an 11-parameter tool. The Returns section is largely redundant with the existing output schema and could be trimmed.

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?

With a rich output schema available, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers all 11 parameters including defaults. What remains missing for a file-writing scene builder is overwrite semantics and pipeline ordering relative to the sibling tools, but the core invocation details are present.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: every parameter gets a sentence, defaults are restated, and alpha_threshold gains a 0..255 range and thickness_ratio an explicit meaning. The notable gap is collider_frames, described only as 'frame regions' with no indication of the object fields inside that array of objects.

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 opens with a specific verb and artifact: writes a complete Godot 4 .tscn character scene containing an AnimatedSprite2D and a feet-aligned body collider. That distinguishes it from build_sprite_frames and build_body_collider, which produce the inputs rather than the assembled scene. It stops short of naming those siblings as prerequisites, so the boundary is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: the parameters reference a 'generated SpriteFrames .tres' and collider frames, hinting that build_sprite_frames and extract_collision_polygon/build_body_collider run first, but no ordering, preconditions, or alternatives are stated. Nothing says when not to use this tool or whether it should be run once per character.

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