add_node

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the side effect of saving, but does not explain what happens if the node already exists, whether properties are merged or overwritten, or what the return value/error behavior is. For a mutation tool, this is a significant 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise and well-structured, though the brevity edges toward under-specification for a tool with six parameters; adding one more sentence of context would not hurt conciseness.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and six parameters, the description is incomplete. It conveys the core action but omits prerequisites, dependency on scene/project state, side-effect nuances beyond saving, and any guidance on parameters. It is minimally viable but not safe for autonomous 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 only 17%, with only projectPath described. The description adds no parameter-level meaning; required parameters scenePath, nodeType, and nodeName are left to be inferred from their names, and properties/parentPath are not explained at all.

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 ('Add') and resource ('a node to a scene'), and the 'save it' clause adds persistence scope. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like create_ui_node, create_scene, remove_node, and set_node_property.

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?

The description implies the tool is for adding nodes to existing scenes and saving, which gives some context. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like create_ui_node or create_scene, and no prerequisites such as requiring an open project or scene.

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