nodes

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true. The description adds node path syntax and action structure but does not disclose side effects beyond the annotations (e.g., no mention of undo, permissions, or that remove is irreversible). It adds some value but is not rich.

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 extremely concise, using bullet points and a clear structure. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded with the title. Zero waste.

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 complexity (9 parameters, 6 actions) and 100% schema coverage, the description is fairly complete. It covers all actions and parameter roles. However, it does not mention return values for 'list' or 'get_property', which would improve completeness. No output schema exists, so the description could have elaborated on outputs.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by mapping parameters to specific actions (required vs optional) and explaining node path syntax. This goes beyond the schema's 'description' fields and helps the agent select correct parameters per action.

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 clearly states 'Scene node operations' and lists specific actions (add, remove, rename, list, set_property, get_property), which are distinct from sibling tools like scenes or resources. Each action targets a specific verb and resource.

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 shows required vs optional parameters for each action, guiding when to use each action. However, it lacks explicit comparison with sibling tools or conditions for when not to use this tool. The format provides clear context but no exclusions.

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