scenes

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, which match the description's mention of 'delete' and 'set_main' as potentially destructive actions. The description adds transparency about the scene_path format (relative, not res://) and parameter requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line summary followed by a bulleted list of actions with parameter dependencies and a critical formatting note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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's complexity (6 parameters, enum-driven actions, no output schema), the description covers all actions and their parameter needs. It mentions the sibling tool for further edits. However, it does not describe return values or behavior for edge cases (e.g., missing scene).

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?

Although the schema already describes each parameter, the description adds significant value by grouping parameters per action (e.g., 'create (scene_path -> root_type="Node2D", root_name, project_path)') and clarifying the scene_path format ('NOT res:// prefix'). This goes beyond the schema's individual descriptions.

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 file (.tscn) CRUD' and lists specific actions (create, list, info, delete, duplicate, set_main), leaving no ambiguity about purpose. It distinguishes from the sibling 'nodes' tool by mentioning that nodes should be edited with that tool.

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 provides a structured list of actions with required and optional parameters, and explicitly tells when to use the sibling 'nodes' tool ('Use nodes tool to edit nodes within a scene'). However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or provide fallback alternatives.

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