Godot Script Patch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It provides almost none: no mention of whether the tool mutates the file on disk, whether it requires the project to be running, whether changes are reversible, what happens on invalid line numbers, or whether this triggers a filesystem rescan. For a mutating tool, 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 description is a single efficient sentence with no filler. It earns its place but is under-specified rather than concise in the positive sense; the brevity is appropriate for what's there, which is why it doesn't drop lower.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema parameter coverage, the description is severely under-specified. For a mutating 4-parameter tool, the agent needs to know line indexing semantics, whether the change is persisted immediately, error behavior for out-of-range lines, and how this differs from godot_file_patch. None of this is provided.

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 four parameters. It does not: the description never mentions path, startLine, endLine, or replacement, nor the semantics of line-based patching (e.g., whether endLine is inclusive, 0-indexed vs 1-indexed, whether line numbers refer to the file after previous patches). The 0-indexing/off-by-one ambiguity for line positions is a critical detail that's completely unaddressed.

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 'Apply a line-based patch to a script file' clearly states a verb (apply) and resource (script file) with a scope qualifier (line-based patch). However, it doesn't distinguish from the sibling godot_file_patch tool, and 'line-based patch' is somewhat vague about whether it's a unified diff, add/remove ranges, or something else specific to Godot scripts.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the sibling godot_file_patch or godot_script_read. With 30+ sibling tools including godot_file_patch and godot_script_create, the description provides no context for choosing this tool over alternatives. There's no mention of requiring the file to be a .gd script, when a full rewrite via script_create would be preferable, or whether this patches the on-disk file only or also updates the running scene.

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