add_node

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

With no annotations available, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it fails to mention side effects (e.g., modifying the .tscn file), prerequisites (e.g., scene must exist, node type must be valid), or failure modes. This is a mutation tool with zero transparency.

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, concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so brief that it lacks useful context, making it less effective than a slightly longer description that includes guidance.

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?

For a mutation tool with six parameters and no output schema or annotations, this description is severely inadequate. It does not clarify return values, side effects, node placement, or any limitations, providing insufficient context for an agent to invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so all six parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond that, which is acceptable but does not enhance 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 'Add a node to a scene' uses a clear verb and resource, indicating the core operation. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like editor_add_node or clone_node, both of which could appear to add nodes.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as editor_add_node, modify_node, or remove_node. The description merely states the action without any context for selection.

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