godot_create_collision_polygon

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It does add the useful 2D/3D output distinction, but it misrepresents the input source and never reveals that the operation mutates the active scene by attaching a node at parent_node_path, or that the caller must pre-compute the vertices. No contradiction with the annotations themselves, but material behavioral gaps remain.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before the trailing source clause. Compact and scannable, with no filler; the inaccuracy of the final clause is penalized under other dimensions rather than this one.

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 scene-mutating creation tool with no helpful annotations, this is thin. It omits that the node attaches to the active scene, that this is a physics-collision helper distinct from CSG or generic node creation, and that the input vertices must be computed by the caller. The presence of an output schema excuses missing return-value documentation, but not these operational gaps.

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?

Reported schema_description_coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate for parameter meaning, but it adds nothing about points, depth, disabled, node_name, polygon_type, or parent_node_path — and its 'sprite alpha or mesh' wording actively misleads about what the caller must supply. The schema's own property texts are actually thorough, which softens the damage, but the description contributes zero parameter value and misdirects expectations.

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?

States a concrete verb and resource — generating CollisionPolygon2D/3D shapes — and the 2D/3D split maps to the polygon_type parameter, distinguishing it from CSG shape tools. However, the clause 'from sprite alpha or mesh' is unsupported by the schema: the only required input is explicit vertex 'points', so a caller would reasonably expect sprite/mesh source parameters that do not exist. The misleading source phrase keeps this below a clean 4.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no named alternatives, and no exclusions. The only implied use case, generating from sprite alpha or mesh, is contradicted by the required 'points' parameter, so an agent cannot infer when to choose this over siblings like godot_create_node or godot_create_csg_shape. Nothing helps route the call correctly.

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