manage_resource

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

The description says 'Read or modify' but does not disclose behavioral details like whether modifications are irreversible, require certain permissions, or affect existing properties. With no annotations (no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint), the description carries full burden and 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?

The description is a single sentence, concise and to the point. However, it could include more details without becoming verbose, balancing conciseness with completeness.

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 has 4 parameters, including a nested object for properties, and no output schema, the description is too terse. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and the exact behavior of the 'modify' action.

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 adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it restates 'Read or modify' but does not elaborate on the 'properties' object or the expected format of paths.

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 tool reads or modifies .tres/.res resource files, specifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'godot_parse_resource' or 'godot_create_resource', which also deal with resources, so it could be more specific about the scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'read_file', 'write_file', or 'godot_create_resource'. The agent is not told about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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