godot_create_node

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

The description clearly indicates this is a non-read-only mutation by stating it creates and adds a node. It does not disclose side effects like undo behavior, save requirements, or failure when no scene is active. Annotations already flag non-read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds the active-scene target, but more behavioral detail would be welcome.

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 one concise sentence with no filler or unnecessary repetition. It front-loads the core action and scope. It could be expanded with prerequisites or side effects, but as a short description it earns high marks for economy.

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?

With a detailed input schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential operation well. Main gaps are unstated prerequisites, such as requiring an active scene, and unspecified side effects. Overall it is adequate for a moderately complex creation tool but leaves some operational details to inference.

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 description adds useful context: 'any Godot class' clarifies the type_name parameter's range, and 'active scene' grounds the parent_path default. Although context signals report 0% schema description coverage, the schema itself documents each parameter thoroughly. The description supplements rather than replaces the schema, landing at the viability baseline.

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 states a precise operation: create and add a new node to the active scene. The phrase 'any Godot class' conveys generality and helps distinguish it from specialized creators like godot_create_csg_shape or godot_instantiate_scene. It is clear enough for an agent to select the tool 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?

The description implies use when you need to add a node to the currently active scene, but it does not explicitly compare against sibling tools or state prerequisites such as requiring an open scene. The 'active scene' qualifier gives useful context, yet when-not-to-use guidance is left to inference.

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