update_autoload

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint: true, and the description adds transparency about partial updates ('omitted fields keep their current value') and error conditions. It also implies mutation by stating 'modify,' which aligns with idempotency. No contradictions.

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 only four sentences, front-loaded with the core action. Each sentence serves a purpose: main action, partial update, alternative use case, and error condition. Slightly verbose but overall efficient.

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 tool with 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers usage, partial update behavior, alternatives, and a key error. It is complete enough for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that parameters are optional for partial updates: 'Pass either or both — omitted fields keep their current value.' This clarifies semantics beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 'Modify an existing autoload's path or singleton flag,' providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_autoload and add_autoload by naming them explicitly in the usage guidance.

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 gives explicit guidance: 'Use instead of remove_autoload + add_autoload (single edit, no orphan window).' It also clarifies that no Godot process is required and warns of errors if the autoload is not registered, offering clear context for when to use and what to expect.

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