add_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the operation occurs 'in the edited scene' and that a parent is required, but it does not explain side effects (e.g., whether the scene is saved, if changes are undoable), how errors are handled (e.g., invalid type), or what happens with conflicting names. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with no additional metadata.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. It is concise and easy to scan. However, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, so it is not perfect; a slightly longer description that explains parameters would be acceptable if still structured efficiently.

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 4 parameters (one nested object), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the return value, the expected format for 'type' (e.g., full path, class name), how 'properties' is structured, and potential failure modes. An agent would likely need to guess or make assumptions, making this incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It only implicitly references 'type' (ClassDB class or script) and 'parent_path' ('under a parent'), but provides no explanation for 'name' or 'properties'. The 'properties' object is especially unclear—what keys, value types, or how they map to node properties. The description adds minimal value over the bare 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 clearly states the action ('Add a node') and the specific resource type ('ClassDB class or project class_name script'), and mentions placement 'under a parent in the edited scene'. This distinguishes it from siblings like add_scene_instance (which adds a scene instance) and batch_add_nodes (which adds multiple). However, the phrasing 'class_name script' is a bit awkward and could be clearer.

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 implies the tool is for adding nodes from scripts/classes rather than scene instances, which gives some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like add_scene_instance or batch_add_nodes, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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