Manage Path2D and Curve2D nodes by creating, adding, setting, or retrieving points to define movement paths for AnimatedSprite2D.
Path2D/Curve2D management and AnimatedSprite2D
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Node name | |
| point | No | Single point {x,y} | |
| action | Yes | Action: create, add_point, set_points, get_points | |
| points | No | Array of points [{x,y},...] | |
| nodePath | No | Path2D node path | |
| parentPath | No | Parent node path (for create) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must disclose behavioral traits itself, but it does not. It never says whether actions like create, add_point, or set_points mutate the scene, require an existing node, or have side effects. The only behavioral signal is the vague word 'management', which is insufficient.
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 short but not effectively concise: it includes irrelevant text ('AnimatedSprite2D') and substitutes the generic noun 'management' for a useful verb phrase. It is under-specified rather than economically precise, and the structure does not front-load the key operation or scope.
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?
With six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description needed to explain the action semantics, point format, and node-path relationships. It provides none of that context, and it does not differentiate this tool from closely related siblings. This is not enough context for an agent to call the tool 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?
The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the schema carries the semantic load for fields like action, point, and points. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents all parameters. The unrelated 'AnimatedSprite2D' mention does not clarify any parameter.
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 says 'Path2D/Curve2D management' but never states a concrete operation such as creating, editing, or querying paths. It also lists 'AnimatedSprite2D', which is unrelated to the input schema's point/action semantics and confuses the tool's actual purpose. This is vague rather than a clear verb+resource statement.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like game_path_3d or animation-related tools. The description does not mention prerequisites, intended scene context, or when this tool should be preferred over sibling tools. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the parameter names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.