godot-mcp-pilot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that descendant parent paths are updated automatically, which is useful behavioral context beyond basic mutation. However, it lacks details on permissions, error conditions, or what happens if the move fails, leaving room for improvement in transparency.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two concise sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and key behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it efficient and easy to understand.

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 moderate complexity (mutation with 4 parameters) and no annotations or output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers the basic operation and a behavioral trait, but lacks details on return values, error handling, or integration with sibling tools, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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 four parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide examples), resulting in a baseline score of 3 as 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 specific action ('move/re-parent'), resource ('a node'), and scope ('within the same scene'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'add_node', 'duplicate_node', or 'remove_node' which perform different operations. It precisely defines what the tool does without being vague or tautological.

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 by specifying 'within the same scene', which provides some context, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'duplicate_node' for copying or 'add_node' for creating new nodes). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving gaps in guidance.

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