Godot File Write

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 does not state whether overwrite behavior is in effect, whether the write triggers a filesystem rescan, whether the file must be under a specific subdirectory, or what happens on failure. 'text file' implies encoding but doesn't specify UTF-8 or line-ending handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotations, more disclosure is needed.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that front-loads the essential purpose with verb and location. No wasted words. Could arguably add a second sentence about overwrite or directory behavior without harming conciseness.

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?

A file-write tool with 3 parameters (2 required) and zero description coverage on all parameters, plus no annotations and no output schema, needs significantly more description. Critical gaps: overwrite semantics, path resolution relative to project root, effect of createDirectories=false when parent dirs don't exist, and any side effects on the Godot editor. The single-sentence description leaves the agent guessing on key behaviors.

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% — none of the parameters (path, content, createDirectories) have descriptions. The description compensates only marginally: it clarifies 'text file' and 'project root' context, but doesn't explain the semantics of createDirectories (a boolean that presumably creates missing parent directories), nor clarify whether path is relative to project root, whether it must have a specific extension, or content encoding. With zero schema coverage, the description should carry much more weight.

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 a specific verb (write) + resource (text file) + location scope (inside Godot project root). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like godot_file_read, godot_file_patch, and godot_file_delete. It doesn't differentiate between create vs overwrite behavior, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this versus godot_file_patch or godot_script_create, which both may overlap with file writing operations. No mention of whether it overwrites existing files, requires the project to be running, or interacts with the editor filesystem scan. The description gives no exclusions or alternatives.

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