Create Scene

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

Annotations provide only a title, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that a file is created (a write operation), but says nothing about whether existing files are overwritten, what side effects occur in the project, or what happens without a project_path. For a mutation tool with no annotation support, this is a significant transparency 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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the action is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified for a tool with 5 parameters and potential file-system side effects; the brevity reflects lack of content rather than disciplined editing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and parameter coverage is complete. But the description fails to address key operational context: overwrite behavior, how the scene relates to the Godot project, when create_scene is preferred over create_resource or write_file, and what 'new' means when a target file already exists. A 5-parameter creation tool needs more than this one-liner.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline-3 case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Create a new scene file.' — which clearly identifies the operation. It is distinguishable from read/validate/list scene siblings by its creation verb, though it does not actively differentiate itself from other create_* tools like godot_create_resource or godot_create_script beyond the resource type.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_create_resource, godot_create_script, godot_write_file, or godot_validate_scene. There are no usage conditions, exclusions, or workflow hints, leaving the agent to infer appropriate invocation context on its own.

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