rupa_adegan_node

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description's 'hapus' aligns with that. The description adds context about the role system and scaling rationale, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as side effects, overwriting behavior, or whether deletion is permanent. It goes slightly beyond annotations but not substantially.

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, consisting of three short sentences, with the core action front-loaded. It avoids redundancy and is efficiently written, though it could be slightly more structured with bullet points, but it remains appropriately sized for the scope of the tool.

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 29 parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the interplay between 'aksi' and required parameters (e.g., which fields are needed for add vs. update vs. delete), nor does it clarify return values or side effects. The heavy reliance on schema descriptions for parameters, combined with a minimal narrative, leaves significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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?

With schema description coverage at 55%, the description compensates partially by explaining the semantics of 'jenis' and 'peran' (asset vs. basic shapes, and role-based scaling exclusion). It does not elaborate on many other parameters (e.g., fisika_* or transform fields), leaving gaps. The added context is helpful but not comprehensive enough to fully compensate for the moderate coverage.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Tambah, ubah, atau hapus node' (add, change, or delete a node). It further explains the concepts of 'jenis' and 'peran', giving specific semantics. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rupa_adegan_aset or rupa_adegan_cahaya, so it lacks explicit sibling contrast.

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 provides context on when to use certain parameter values (e.g., why basic shapes exist, how 'peran' affects scaling evaluation) but does not give explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative sibling tools. It implies usage through the node management context but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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