set_shape_points

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for disclosing side effects, but it only says 'Set shape'. It does not state that this modifies the scene file, replaces existing shapes, or requires specific permissions. This is a serious 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 sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. It omits critical operational details and does not earn its place because it adds little to the tool name.

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 description is completely inadequate for a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It fails to explain the interplay between shape_type and the geometric parameters, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. It does not explain how shape_type relates to points, radius, or extents, but the schema does describe each parameter individually.

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 shape on CollisionShape2D' is a vague restatement of the tool name. It does not mention 'points' or the shape types (rectangle, circle, etc.) and fails to distinguish this tool from siblings like set_collision_shape. The verb+resource is present but lacks specificity about what 'shape' means in this 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as set_collision_shape or create_collision_polygon. There is no mention of prerequisites, supported node types, or exclusions.

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