Create a scene

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

Annotations already establish write, non-destructive, non-open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that a .tscn is written with a typed root node, but omits key behavior such as what happens if scenePath already exists (overwrite vs. error) or whether the parent directory must exist.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero waste that states the action, artifact, and result in a single pass.

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?

Adequate for a simple file-creation tool whose params are fully documented, but with no output schema the description should clarify collision/overwrite behavior and what the call returns. A create-and-write tool leaves that gap unaddressed.

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 the schema already documents scenePath, projectPath, and rootNodeType with examples and defaults. The description only alludes to the root node type, adding nothing beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (Create) plus resource (.tscn scene file) with a clarifying detail about the root node type. An agent can distinguish it from mutation siblings like add_node or save_scene, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as save_scene (persisting an existing scene) or add_node (mutating one). The agent must infer the workflow from the name alone.

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