add_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states that the tool mutates an existing scene via the GDScript engine, but does not disclose side effects such as whether the scene file is saved, whether the editor must be running, whether changes are reversible, or what happens on failure.

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 a short, scoped sentence followed by a compact parameter list. Every parameter earns its place and the list format is well suited to an agent scanning for argument meanings.

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?

Parameters are well covered and an output schema exists, so return-value details are not required. However, for a mutating tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete about preconditions, side effects, and error behavior, which an agent would need to use it safely in a real project.

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 all six parameters. It adds meaningful context: absolute vs relative paths, default parent, optional properties dictionary, and an example node type. This gives an agent enough semantic grounding to populate the arguments correctly.

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 a specific action ('Add a node') and resource ('existing Godot scene'), which distinguishes it from scene creation or loading tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the 'existing' qualifier gives enough context to route correctly.

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 context is implied by the resource description: this is for adding a node to an existing scene rather than creating or saving a scene. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like create_scene or save_scene, nor any preconditions such as needing the scene open.

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