game_mesh_instance

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states it creates a MeshInstance3D, which implies a safe creation operation, but it does not disclose what happens if the node already exists, whether it replaces or adds, or any side effects like parenting or scene modifications.

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 fluff. However, it lacks structure (e.g., bullet points or sections) that could improve scanability, but this is minor.

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?

The tool has 7 parameters, 2 required, nested objects, and no output schema. The description is too brief: it does not explain parameter relationships, conditional usage (e.g., radius for spheres), or what the return value is. The tool's complexity demands more context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names—no details on how 'size' vs 'height'/'radius' interact for different mesh types, or how 'material' accepts paths or hex colors.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('MeshInstance3D with primitive meshes'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'game_procedural_mesh' and 'game_spawn_node' which handle different mesh or node types.

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives is provided. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context where other siblings (e.g., 'game_physics_body') would be more appropriate.

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