Import a GDevelop resource

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so this is a write operation, and the description's 'Register' matches that. However, the description does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as whether the file is copied or referenced, overwrite behavior, failure modes, or required permissions. With minimal annotation coverage, the description carries the burden and fails to provide meaningful 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, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action ('Register') and lists supported resource types. It is concise, front-loaded, and wastes no words.

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 complexity (5 parameters, nested metadata object, enum, no output schema, and minimal annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, side effects, prerequisites beyond 'open project', or parameter relationships, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps some parameters implicitly (sourceFile as local file, kind as one of the listed file types, projectId as an open project), but does not explain metadata, the meaning of resourceName, or the default/auto behavior of kind. This is only partial compensation for a 5-parameter schema.

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 the specific verb 'Register' and enumerates exactly which file types are handled (image, model, audio, video, font, JSON, Spine, JavaScript) and the scope ('in an open project'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_project or export_project, which have different purposes.

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 implies usage when you need to add an existing local file to an open project, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_project or set_scene_javascript. No exclusions or alternative names are given, though the 'open project' constraint provides some context.

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