scene_manage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains that create 'Create a new .tscn with the given root and open it', save_as 'Save the currently edited scene to a new file path', and get_roots 'List scenes currently open in the editor; flag the edited one.' It also notes default behavior for root_name. However, it omits details about whether create overwrites existing files or how errors are surfaced, which is a minor gap.

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 yet comprehensive. It uses a bulleted list for operations with signature and one-sentence explanation each, plus a canonical call shape line. Every sentence adds value, with 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?

For a multi-operation tool, the description covers all operations, parameters, defaults, and the call shape. It also provides an alternative resource-based approach for reads. Given the output schema exists and the description is thorough, the context is 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but the description provides complete parameter information for each operation: 'create(path, root_type="Node3D", root_name="")', 'save_as(path)', and 'get_roots()'. It even explains the root_name default ('defaults to filename basename when empty'). This fully compensates for the generic 'params' object in 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 opens with 'Scene authoring (create, save_as, list open roots)' which clearly states the tool's scope and operations. It enumerates specific verbs and resources for each operation (e.g., 'create(path, root_type="Node3D", root_name="")'), and the mention of resource URIs for reads distinguishes this authoring tool from read-oriented alternatives like scene_get_hierarchy.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Resource form: godot://scene/current and godot://scene/hierarchy — prefer for active-session reads.' This tells the agent when to use an alternative resource-based approach instead of this tool. Each operation's description and parameter list further clarifies when to invoke create, save_as, or get_roots.

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