godot_edit_primitive_mesh

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool modifies an existing resource, implying mutation, but does not address critical aspects like whether changes are destructive, require specific permissions, have side effects on the scene, or provide error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior and safety.

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 action and target. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating usage context from parameter hints. Overall, it is appropriately concise for the tool's complexity.

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 (mutation with 6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It lacks information on behavioral traits, error handling, return values, and how it fits among siblings. While the schema covers parameters well, the description does not compensate for the missing annotations and output schema, leaving the agent under-informed for safe and effective use.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by implying that 'mesh_type' and 'mesh_parameters' are the primary editable fields, but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or examples beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without enhancing parameter understanding.

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 ('Modify'), the target resource ('PrimitiveMesh resource attached to an existing MeshInstance3D'), and the specific changes ('changing its mesh type and/or one or more mesh parameters'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'godot_add_primitive_mesh' (adds new) and 'godot_edit_scene' (broader edits), though not explicitly named. The purpose is specific but could be more explicit about sibling differentiation.

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 minimal guidance on when to use this tool. It implies usage for editing existing PrimitiveMesh resources, but does not specify when to choose this over alternatives like 'godot_edit_scene' for broader edits or 'godot_add_primitive_mesh' for adding new ones. No prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent with little contextual direction.

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