Instance a scene

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

The description discloses the crucial behavioral trait that the instance is not a copy and that later edits to the source propagate. This goes beyond the schema and gives the agent an accurate mental model. No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden; it does not mention side effects like file modification or reversibility, but the core non-copying behavior is well conveyed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and includes a helpful Godot analogy ('prefabs'). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 8 parameters, a nested properties object, and no output schema, the description is brief but the schema fills in most parameter details. However, the 'force' parameter is undocumented, and there is no mention of what the tool returns or how success is indicated. The description gives the essential conceptual model but relies heavily on the schema for complete usage context.

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 high (88%), so most parameters are already described. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or details; it only references 'scene' and 'instance' implicitly. The 'force' parameter lacks any schema description or explanation in the description, but overall the schema handles the semantics adequately.

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 action: 'Place one scene inside another as an instance (not a copy)'. It also highlights the key distinction from copying and explains the propagation behavior, which differentiates it from scene creation or node addition tools.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you want instancing so that edits to the source propagate. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or list when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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