modify_scene_node

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Modify node properties' and 'headless', but does not explain what happens on failure, whether modifications are immediately saved, if undo is supported, or any permissions needed. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 phrase, concise but borderline under-specified. It could be expanded to a full sentence without losing brevity.

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 modifies a scene file with 4 required parameters and no output schema. The description does not cover what happens after modification (e.g., auto-save, validation), error scenarios, or required project state. The information is insufficient for an agent to use it reliably.

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 the schema documents all four parameters. The description adds no extra detail about parameter usage patterns or format. Baseline score 3 is appropriate as the schema does the work.

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 clearly states the verb 'Modify', the resource 'node properties', and the context 'in a scene file (headless)', which distinguishes it from runtime property setters like 'game_set_property' and node manipulators like 'remove_scene_node'.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'game_set_property' for runtime changes or 'manage_scene_structure' for structural edits. The description lacks usage context and does not mention prerequisites or limitations.

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