editor_create_csg_polygon

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the primary action, failing to mention side effects (e.g., adding to scene tree, generating default properties), error conditions (e.g., if no scene is open), or any other behavioral traits. The schema mentions auto-generated name, but the description adds no extra 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, clear sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place, making it concise and well-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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description should provide more context. It does not mention prerequisites like an open scene or editor running, nor does it explain what happens after creation (e.g., selection, return value). The description is too minimal for a tool with these complexities, especially given the large set of sibling tools.

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%: all three parameters (name, parent, properties) have descriptions, so the schema already documents parameter meaning. The description adds no extra semantic value beyond what the schema provides. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles parameter semantics fully.

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 clear verb ('Create') and specifies a specific resource ('CSGPolygon3D node') within a context ('open scene'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like editor_create_csg_box or editor_create_csg_sphere, which create different node types. The wording directly states what the tool does.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name and resource type imply use for CSGPolygon3D, there is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., an open scene must exist) or when to prefer this over generic add_node or other CSG creation tools. The only context is 'in the open scene,' which is not elaborated.

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