launch_editor

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does most of it well: it discloses that the editor cannot be controlled programmatically, that it returns plain-text confirmation after spawning the process, and that it errors when projectPath lacks project.godot. It does not say whether the call blocks until the editor closes or how the spawned process is later managed, which is the main remaining gap for a process-spawning tool.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler; the primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by the routing rule and then the return/error contract. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, exclusions, alternatives, return type, and the failure condition. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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 already 100% for the single projectPath parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real constraint semantics beyond the schema by stating the directory must contain project.godot or the call errors, which tells the agent how to validate the path before invoking.

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 ('Open the Godot editor GUI for a project for the human user') and scopes it to the human user, which immediately separates it from the agent-driven siblings like add_node and set_node_properties. An agent can identify its role without opening the schema.

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 an explicit when ('only when the user explicitly asks to "open the editor"') and an explicit when-not with named alternatives ('for any agent-driven work, use the headless scene/node tools (add_node, set_node_properties, etc.)'). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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