update_project_uids

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies a mutation ('Update'), suggesting potential destructive changes, but doesn't disclose risks (e.g., data loss, irreversible changes), permissions needed, or side effects like performance impact. The mention of 'resaving resources' hints at file modifications, but lacks detail on what gets altered or safety considerations.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Update UID references in a Godot project') and adds necessary context ('by resaving resources' and 'for Godot 4.4+'). Every phrase adds value without redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 1 parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the tool's purpose and version constraint but lacks behavioral details (risks, effects) and usage context. For a mutation tool with no annotations, it should provide more safety and operational guidance to be fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'projectPath' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond implying the tool operates on a Godot project directory. Since the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Update UID references') and the resource ('in a Godot project'), with the specific mechanism 'by resaving resources' and version constraint 'for Godot 4.4+'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_uid' or 'save_scene' by focusing on UID reference updates rather than retrieval or general saving. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'run_project' or 'export_mesh_library'), keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions the Godot 4.4+ version constraint, but doesn't specify scenarios (e.g., after project migration, to fix broken references) or prerequisites. Without explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, it offers minimal usage context.

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