update_autoload

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

Annotations only supply idempotentHint, so the description carries most of the burden and does so well: it discloses partial-update semantics (omitted fields retained), that no Godot process is required, the return shape (plain-text confirmation), and a concrete error condition (unregistered autoloadName). This is meaningful behavior beyond the structured fields.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: purpose first, then parameter contract, then sibling routing, then operational notes. 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly states the return value; it also covers the error case and execution requirements for a 4-parameter mutation tool. An agent has everything needed 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 goes further by explaining that autoloadPath and singleton are optional edits whose omission preserves current values, which is semantic meaning the schema alone does not convey. It does not add format or validation detail beyond that.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Modify an existing autoload') and enumerates exactly the mutable fields ('path or singleton flag'). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling pair add_autoload and remove_autoload, which it explicitly contrasts.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance with an alternative named: 'Use instead of remove_autoload + add_autoload (single edit, no orphan window).' It also states the partial-update contract ('Pass either or both - omitted fields keep their current value'), so nothing about invocation conditions 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.