Manipulate points of Line2D/Polygon2D nodes: add, set, clear, or retrieve point data, with optional color and width adjustments.
Line2D/Polygon2D point manipulation
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| color | No | Color {r,g,b,a} | |
| point | No | Single point {x,y} | |
| width | No | Line width | |
| action | Yes | Action: add_point, set_points, clear, get_points | |
| points | No | Array of points [{x,y},...] | |
| nodePath | Yes | Path to Line2D/Polygon2D node |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It fails to indicate that set_points and clear are destructive/replacement operations, whether get_points returns data, or what node state is required. The terse phrase 'point manipulation' adds no behavioral detail beyond the schema's action list.
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?
Six words with no wasted content, but the brevity is under-specification rather than disciplined concision. A tool with four distinct actions and six parameters needs more than a noun phrase to be genuinely useful.
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 description leaves critical usage relationships undefined: which parameters apply to which action (point for add_point vs points for set_points), what clear/get_points require, and what the tool returns. With no output schema and no annotations, this is too incomplete for reliable invocation.
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 schema already documents all six parameters including object shapes ({r,g,b,a}, {x,y}). The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, which keeps this at the baseline 3 for high coverage rather than higher or lower.
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 names the specific resources (Line2D/Polygon2D nodes) and the operation domain (point manipulation), narrowing the generic tool name and distinguishing it from siblings such as game_path_2d or game_physics_2d. It lacks an explicit verb, but the schema's action enum (add_point, set_points, clear, get_points) supplies the concrete 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many related siblings (game_path_2d, game_canvas_draw, game_set_property, game_call_method), an agent receives no routing information, exclusions, or prerequisites anywhere in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.