add_node

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the addition of a node and does not disclose whether the scene file is modified on disk, whether saving is required, how existing nodes are affected, or any side effects beyond the add action.

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 single-sentence description is concise and free of fluff, which is structurally positive. However, it is so minimal that it under-specifies critical contextual details, so brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is far too thin. It fails to explain where the node is added, how parentNodePath is used, whether this is a persistent file edit or runtime operation, or how it relates to game_spawn_node and modify_scene_node.

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 parameters are already documented in the schema and the description adds no additional semantic value. The baseline of 3 applies because the description does not compensate with extra context such as default parent behavior or how properties are applied.

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 ('Add') and a resource ('a node') with a target context ('an existing scene'), making the core operation clear. It is not merely a tautology, though it could more explicitly distinguish itself from runtime spawning or scene-file editing operations.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as game_spawn_node, game_instantiate_scene, or modify_scene_node. The description implies design-time scene editing but never states exclusions or conditions, leaving the agent to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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