Create scene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the uid:// assignment, which is a useful side-effect, but does not mention overwrite behavior, error conditions, or whether the operation is irreversible. This provides some transparency but is incomplete.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and adding a key behavioral detail. No extraneous information.

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?

Given the high schema coverage and no output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It provides the core purpose and a unique side effect, and the schema covers parameter details. It is adequate for a simple creation tool, though it omits overwrite conflict behavior.

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 high (83%), so the schema already documents most parameters. The description reinforces the meaning of root_type and script but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: creating a new .tscn scene file with a configurable root node type and optional script, plus a uid:// assignment. This distinguishes it from siblings like script_create (which creates scripts) and node_add (which modifies existing scenes).

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 conveys the primary use case—creating a new scene from scratch—and implies it's for new files rather than modifying existing scenes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it lacks exclusion criteria.

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