create_collision_polygon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Create', which implies a write operation, but does not mention side effects on the scene file, overwriting behavior, or error handling. 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 sentence that repeats the tool name. While short, it is under-specified and fails to provide meaningful information beyond the name. This is under-specification, not conciseness, as the sentence does not earn its place.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what the tool does, what the inputs mean, and what happens after execution. It only states the action, leaving the agent to infer everything from the schema. For a mutation tool with four parameters, this is inadequate.

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 provides detailed descriptions for all four parameters, including the points array format and parent_path default. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it scores at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 tool creates a CollisionPolygon2D, which is a specific action and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like set_shape_points or set_collision_shape, and it essentially restates the tool name without additional context.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a parent physics body, nor does it compare to related tools like read_collision_polygon or set_shape_points.

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