project_update_uids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('update UID references by resaving resources') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is destructive, what resources are modified, or if it requires specific permissions. The version constraint hints at compatibility but lacks details on side effects or reversibility.

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 short and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Category: Project' line is somewhat redundant but does not significantly bloat. The parameter is listed in a clear argument format. Overall, every sentence contributes, though the category could be omitted.

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 a single parameter and an output schema present (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the tool's action and parameter meaning adequately. However, it lacks information on what a UID reference is, the impact on the project, and whether the operation is safe or reversible, leaving some gaps for an AI agent.

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 coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. The description lists 'Args: project_path: Path to the Godot project directory', clarifying that the parameter is a directory path. This adds value beyond the schema's 'title: Project Path'. However, it does not specify format (absolute/relative), existence checks, or trailing slash requirements.

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 'Update UID references in a Godot project by resaving resources (for Godot 4.4+).' This provides a specific verb ('update') and resource ('UID references in a Godot project'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'resource_get_uid' which reads a UID. The purpose is unambiguous and directly actionable.

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 includes a version constraint 'for Godot 4.4+' which guides when to use. However, it does not provide when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternative tools. The context implies usage when UID references need updating, but no explicit exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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