create_scene

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions creating a file, but it does not state whether an existing file is overwritten, whether intermediate directories are created, whether the project must already exist, or what happens on invalid inputs. The output schema exists, so return-value details are covered, but side effects and failure modes are left undisclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded. The main purpose is stated in one sentence, followed by a clean Args list. Every line provides needed information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema titles.

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 simple creation tool with a straightforward parameter list, the description covers the essential invocation details. However, it lacks side-effect context, error behavior, and guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings. These gaps keep it from being fully complete, though the output schema likely covers return values.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It compensates fully by explaining project_path as an absolute path, scene_path as a project-relative path with an example, and root_node_type as a Godot class name with a default. This adds substantial semantic value beyond the bare input schema.

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 names the operation: 'Create a new Godot scene file via the GDScript engine.' It identifies the resource (a scene file) and the action (create). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like save_scene, but the word 'new' helps conceptually separate creation from saving an existing scene.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. Sibling tools like save_scene, add_node, or launch_editor are not mentioned, and no context is given about whether this tool is appropriate for new projects, existing scenes, or modifications. The description simply states what it does without helping an agent decide between related tools.

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