game_csg

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create/configure' implies mutation, but the description never states whether configure modifies nodes in place, whether boolean operations rebuild the CSG tree, what constraints apply, or what side effects occur. For a geometry-mutating tool this is a meaningful 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?

A single sentence, verb first, with zero filler — very economical. It is concise without being a tautology. It loses a point because the brevity sacrifices mode/type organization that a short clause could have provided (e.g., naming box/sphere/cylinder/combiner).

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 10-parameter tool with two actions, five CSG types, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is thin. It does not explain the create-vs-configure workflow, which parameters apply to which csgType, how the combiner and boolean operations interact, or what success looks like. An agent would need substantial inference to call this correctly.

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 100%, so per the baseline rule the description need not repeat parameter details. The description's only parameter-level contribution is hinting that 'boolean operations' map to the operation field. It adds no cross-parameter insight (e.g., size applies to box, radius to sphere/cylinder, nodePath for configure), which leaves value on the table but does not drop below baseline.

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-resource pair ('Create/configure CSG nodes') and adds a distinguishing modifier ('boolean operations'). This separates it from generic siblings like game_spawn_node or game_procedural_mesh. However, it stops short of naming the supported shape types or the combiner node, so an agent must open the schema to fully pin down scope.

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, and no conditions selecting 'create' vs 'configure'. It gives no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of how it relates to siblings like game_spawn_node or game_remove_node. The agent is left to infer usage from the schema alone.

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