editor_set_main_scene

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the action 'Set' without revealing potential side effects (e.g., modifying project.godot), whether the change is reversible, or if any validation occurs. This lack of detail is a significant gap 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, succinct sentence with no wasted words or redundancy. It perfectly fits the 'concise' ideal.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and full schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, which would make it more complete. It sits at the boundary of 'minimum viable'.

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% for the single parameter 'scene', which is described as 'Scene path to set as main'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 'Set the project main scene' clearly identifies the verb (Set) and resource (project main scene), so the tool's purpose is unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like editor_set_project_setting, though no direct competitor exists for this specific action.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or whether it's preferred over editing project settings directly. The description simply states the action without any contextual or exclusionary information.

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