godot_create_csg_shape

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

The description is consistent with the annotations: readOnlyHint=false implies mutation, and 'Construct' expresses that. It adds a bit of context by limiting the tool to CSG shapes, but it still does not mention side effects like scene-tree insertion, repeated-call duplicates, or how boolean operations apply.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and examples make the purpose obvious. The minor wording repetition ('Construct Constructive') is a small defect, but the length is appropriate.

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 12-property CSG tool with an output schema and annotations covering the mutation profile, the schema can carry much of the invocation burden. However, the description does not provide enough scene/usage context or sibling differentiation for an agent to confidently pick it among many Godot creation tools.

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?

The free-text description only hints at shape_type through examples (CSGBox, CSGSphere, etc.) and says nothing about size, height, radius, position, operation, parent_path, or rotation. With the reported 0% schema description coverage, the description does not compensate for the missing parameter guidance.

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 has a specific verb, 'Construct', and names a concrete resource type: Constructive Solid Geometry shapes, with CSGBox and CSGSphere as examples. This distinguishes it from generic node/procedural-mesh tools, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling.

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 choose this tool over sibling creation tools, no prerequisites such as an active scene or parent node, and no note about limitations. Usage context is only implied by the tool name.

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