godot-mcp-pilot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the action is added 'with no events bound', which is useful behavioral context about the initial state. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, whether this is idempotent (e.g., if adding an existing action fails or updates), error conditions, or what happens to the project file. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a usage note. It avoids redundancy and is appropriately sized, though the second sentence could be slightly more integrated into the main guidance.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and a hint about binding, but lacks completeness for a mutation tool. It doesn't cover error handling, return values, or side effects, leaving gaps in understanding how to use it effectively in an automated context.

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 both parameters ('projectPath' and 'actionName') well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples for 'actionName' or constraints on 'projectPath'. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('Add') and resource ('a new input action to the project's Input Map'), specifying it's created without events bound. It distinguishes from sibling 'remove_input_action' by being the creation counterpart, though doesn't explicitly differentiate from other 'add_' tools like 'add_node' or 'add_autoload'.

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 implies usage context by mentioning the need to bind keys via Godot editor or 'set_project_setting', suggesting this tool creates a placeholder action. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like directly configuring in the editor or using 'set_project_setting' for binding, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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