Godot File Patch

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. 'Apply a line-based patch' implies mutation but doesn't disclose whether the operation is destructive to existing content, whether line numbers are 0-indexed or 1-indexed, whether the patch is validated before application, or what happens if line ranges are invalid. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 single-sentence description is compact, but it errs on the side of under-specification rather than conciseness. There is room for one or two additional sentences clarifying line indexing and behavior without becoming verbose. It's not bloated, but it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

For a 4-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is notably incomplete. It doesn't explain the line range semantics, indexing convention, path resolution context, or return value/confirmation behavior. The sibling godot_script_patch suggests a similar tool deserves differentiation. Given the schema provides no descriptions and there are no annotations, more burden falls on this description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all 4 undocumented parameters. 'Line-based patch' hints that startLine and endLine define the patch region, but it doesn't explain the indexing convention (0-based vs 1-based), whether endLine is inclusive, what the replacement string replaces (lines in range vs. lines between), or how path is resolved. The replacement semantics are under-specified for a tool where off-by-one errors are likely.

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 'Apply a line-based patch to a text file' which uses a clear verb (apply) and specifies the resource (text file) and method (line-based). However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the sibling godot_script_patch or godot_file_write, which could also modify file content. The purpose is understandable but lacks differentiation from closely related siblings.

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 doesn't clarify when to prefer this over godot_file_write (full file overwrite) or godot_script_patch (script-specific patching). No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations are given despite a rich sibling set where usage decisions would be genuinely ambiguous.

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