scenes

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description lists destructive actions like delete and duplicate, aligning with those hints, but does not add significant behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as potential side effects or permissions.

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 very concise, using a compact bullet-like format for actions. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 no output schema, the description provides enough context for common CRUD operations. It covers all actions and path conventions. Could be improved by hinting at return values, but overall sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying required vs optional parameters for each action and specifying path format (relative, no res://), which is not present in the schema.

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 starts with 'Scene file (.tscn) CRUD' and lists specific actions (create, list, info, delete, duplicate, set_main), clearly stating the tool's purpose and distinguishing from sibling tools like 'nodes' which edit nodes within a 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 description explicitly mentions when to use alternative tools ('Use nodes tool to edit nodes within a scene') and provides format guidance for scene_path (relative to project root, not res:// prefix). It does not exhaustively cover all alternatives but gives clear context.

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