x3d_add_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool parses both the scene and node XML, inserts the node, and returns modified scene XML. This gives a basic process overview but does not mention error handling, validation, or whether the original scene is preserved. It provides some transparency but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, a sentence describing the process, and a clear Args list. Every sentence provides necessary information, and the format makes it easy to scan. No redundancy or filler.

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), the description needn't detail return values, but it does mention returning modified scene XML. It covers all parameters and the insertion logic. It lacks mention of edge cases like invalid XML or missing DEF, but for a 3-parameter tool with solid parameter semantics, it is reasonably 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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and only type/title, so the description fully compensates. The Args section explains scene_xml as the complete document, node_xml as a fragment that can be generated via x3d_generate_node or written manually, and parent_def with its semantics including the empty-string default. This adds substantial meaning beyond 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 uses the specific verb 'Insert' and the resource 'an X3D node into an existing scene', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like x3d_remove_node or x3d_modify_node. It states the core function in the first sentence, making the tool's purpose immediately clear.

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 context of use is clear: you provide a scene and a node XML to insert, with optional parent DEF. It references x3d_generate_node as a source for node_xml, providing a related alternative for generating the node. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it directly with alternatives like x3d_modify_node, so it stops short of a 5.

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