Raw engine command

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

Annotations provide no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint, so the description bears full responsibility. It states 'Send a raw JSON command' and 'Payload is merged', but does not disclose potential destructive effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. The word 'advanced' hints at caution but is insufficient.

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?

Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists supported commands and payload behavior. Information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 the tool's complexity (raw bridge command) and lack of output schema, the description should clarify return values or response format. It does not. However, the schema is well-described, and the list of commands provides context. It is adequate but not complete for an advanced 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?

Schema descriptions cover all 3 parameters (100% coverage) with basic info. The description adds value by listing supported command values (e.g., ping, info, scene_tree) for the 'command' parameter, which the schema lacks. This helps the agent select valid commands beyond the schema's minimal 'bridge command name'.

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 states 'Send a raw JSON command to the godot_mcp bridge (advanced)', which clearly identifies the verb (send), resource (raw command to bridge), and audience (advanced). The list of supported commands further specifies scope and distinguishes this raw tool from higher-level sibling tools.

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 labels the tool as 'advanced' and lists supported commands, implying it is a fallback for unsupported operations. However, it does not explicitly state when to use or avoid this tool versus the many specific sibling tools (e.g., game_eval, godot_scene_tree), nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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