add_autoload

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that no Godot process is needed, that autoloads initialize in headless mode, that a broken script crashes every subsequent headless op, what the return format is (plain-text name/path/singleton), and the duplicate-name error path.

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?

Front-loads the action, then layers path syntax, singleton default, environment behavior, the headless crash warning, return format, and error path — every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the mutation's side effects, the environment requirement, the return value, and the failure mode, leaving nothing an agent needs to call it 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still adds real value by explaining that autoloadPath accepts both 'res://...' and project-relative paths (auto-prefixed) and by restating the singleton default and its global-access meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Register a new autoload in a project') and explicitly routes the modify case to a named sibling (update_autoload), letting an agent distinguish it from list_autoloads, update_autoload, and remove_autoload.

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?

Gives clear context (no Godot process required) and names the alternative for modification, plus a pre-flight warning to validate before adding. It does not spell out the inverse case (when not to add an autoload) beyond the duplicate-name error, so it falls just short of a full 5.

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