godot_set_node_owner

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds that it can 'synchronize' and mentions recursive behavior via the parameter, but does not disclose side effects like what happens to existing owner relationships or whether this affects scene persistence. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description could add more context about the impact of changing ownership.

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 a single sentence, concise and to the point. It front-loads the action and resource. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (though not shown in detail) and three parameters, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain why setting owner is important (e.g., for scene saving, instancing) or when recursive should be used. The schema covers parameter descriptions, but the description lacks context about the tool's role in scene management. For a tool with moderate complexity, this is adequate but not complete.

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 must compensate. The description mentions 'owner property' and the schema has three parameters (node_path, recursive, owner_node_path) with descriptions. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, only implying the owner is set. It does not explain the relationship between parameters or the default behavior of owner_node_path='.' beyond what the schema says.

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 specific verb ('Set or synchronize') and resource ('owner property of a node'), which is clear. It distinguishes from siblings like godot_reparent_node or godot_modify_node by focusing on the owner property, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 usage context (setting owner in a scene tree) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like reparent_node or modify_node. No exclusions or conditions are given, so the agent must infer when this is the right tool.

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