godot_instantiate_scene

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

Annotations mark this as non-read-only and non-idempotent, so the agent is warned that invocation mutates state, and the description adds that the operation is additive by placing the instance as a child node. However, it does not disclose whether the current scene must be open, whether the new node requires an explicit save to persist, or how invalid scene paths are handled.

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 whole description is one sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and has no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name. Every phrase contributes to the tool's semantics.

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 mutating tool with many sibling operations, the description is usable but thin: it omits the preconditions (e.g., an open scene, a valid existing scene resource, whether the change is saved automatically) that would help an agent safely invoke it. Since an output schema exists, not explaining the return value is acceptable.

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 the `.tscn`/`.scn` file-type hint and the child-node placement, which lightly complements parent concepts like `scene_path` and `parent_path`. Those properties already have good descriptions in the input schema, so the description does not need to repeat them, but it also does not add further semantic clarity for `properties`, `response_format`, or the meaning of the instantiation result.

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 names a specific operation — 'Instantiate a packed scene' — and qualifies the target as a `.tscn` / `.scn` file and the placement as 'a child node.' That is clear enough to separate this from create/open/save scene tools, though it never explicitly names a sibling such as godot_instantiate_model or godot_create_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?

The phrase 'as a child node' implies the intended use: adding an already-existing packed scene into the current node tree, rather than creating or opening a scene. There is no explicit when-to-use/not-use guidance and no mention of alternatives, so the direction is only implied and the agent must infer the applicability.

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