scene-create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the scene is saved automatically after creation, a key behavioral trait. It also notes it is a compact alias of create_scene. No destructive behavior or auth needs are relevant here.

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 three sentences with no wasted words. First sentence states the action, second provides use cases, third notes auto-save. Perfectly concise and structured.

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 output schema and low complexity, the description covers creation, root node, and auto-save. It could mention what is returned (if anything), but for a creation tool this is sufficient.

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% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the default root node type ('Node') and clarifying that scenePath is relative. These details are not in the schema, enhancing parameter understanding.

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 it creates a new Godot scene file (.tscn) with a specified root node type, and explicitly mentions use cases like building game levels, UI screens, or reusable components. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as scene-save or scene-node-add.

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 says 'Use to start building new game levels, UI screens, or reusable components,' providing clear context for when to use this tool. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tool names imply distinct roles.

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