add_raycast

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the coordinate space and units, but does not disclose that a child node is added, that dimension determines the node type, whether the operation is additive/non-destructive, or any side effects. The description fails to disclose key behavioral traits beyond the narrow detail of target_position.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and adds relevant detail without verbosity. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It lacks any explanation of return values, expected behavior, parameter interactions, or prerequisites. The description is minimal and leaves most operational aspects unknown.

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. It only explains target_position's coordinate space and units, while 11 parameters remain undocumented. The description fails to clarify parameters like collision_mask, hit_from_inside, collide_with_areas, and collide_with_bodies, which are non-obvious without further context.

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 tool's verb ('Add'), resource ('RayCast2D/3D child'), and adds meaningful detail about the coordinate space of target_position. Context signals show it as one of many node-creation tools, and this description specifically distinguishes it as raycast-specific.

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 usage for adding a raycast node, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like add_node or when to choose 2D vs 3D. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are mentioned, but the context makes the primary use case clear.

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