Set scene JavaScript

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

Annotation contradiction: the description says 'replace', which implies destructive overwriting of existing code, while destructiveHint is false. This could mislead the agent into thinking no data loss is possible. Additionally, the description does not clarify what 'MCP-managed' entails or what happens to non-MCP code.

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?

A single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. There is no wasted wording, and the structure is clean.

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 too sparse for a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. It lacks details about the mode's behavior (append vs replace), what happens to existing code, and any prerequisites or side effects. The annotation contradiction further reduces reliability.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. It only hints that 'code' is JavaScript code for a scene event but does not explain 'projectId', 'sceneName', or 'mode' semantics beyond the schema's enum and default. This is insufficient for reliable parameter selection.

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 action ('Add or replace') and the specific resource ('MCP-managed inline JavaScript event on a GDevelop scene'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_scene_events, which deal with broader event editing.

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 for setting scene JavaScript but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like set_scene_events. The 'MCP-managed' qualifier hints at a specific use case but is not elaborated.

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