Set project setting

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

Annotations indicate idempotency, and the description adds that sections are created if missing. No contradiction. The description augments the annotation with useful behavioral details without redundancy.

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 incredibly concise—two sentences that convey purpose, behavior, and a key usage hint. Every word earns its place with no fluff.

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 simple nature of the tool (setting a project setting), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, behavior on missing section, and special type handling. No output schema exists, but the description doesn't need to explain return values as the tool likely has no meaningful output.

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% with good parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the 'raw' type with examples (Vector2, PackedStringArray), which enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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 the action (set/add), the resource (project.godot), and provides specific details like section creation and raw type. It distinguishes from sibling tools like modify_project_settings by focusing on individual setting manipulation.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to set or add a setting) and includes guidance on using the 'raw' type. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is sufficient for most scenarios.

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