Update GDevelop project settings

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

The description adds 'in memory', a key behavioral trait not captured by annotations, indicating changes are temporary until saved. Annotations already indicate readOnly=false and destructive=false, so the description's addition of scope and persistence context is valuable.

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, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, efficiently conveying the core purpose without redundancy.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, yet the description provides only a high-level overview. It lacks details on return behavior, error handling, preconditions (e.g., project must be open), and does not compensate for the sparse schema, making it incomplete for safe invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must substitute for missing parameter details, but it only groups parameters into 'metadata, resolution, and frame-rate settings'. It does not explain individual parameters like name, width, author, or constraints, leaving the agent to infer semantics.

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 tool updates project metadata, resolution, and frame-rate settings, with the important scope qualifier 'in memory'. This distinguishes it from siblings like save_project (persisting changes) and create_project (creating a new project).

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?

Usage is implied: the tool is for updating in-memory project settings, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., save_project for persistence). No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided.

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