godot-mcp-pilot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It states the tool removes an input action, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't disclose effects (e.g., whether removal is permanent, if it affects project functionality, or what happens on success/failure). This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Remove') and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential purpose.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the Input Map is, potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. For a tool that modifies project state, more context is needed to use it safely and effectively.

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 parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'actionName' refers to an input action in the Input Map, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 action ('Remove') and the resource ('an input action from the project's Input Map'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'add_input_action' by specifying removal rather than addition, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other removal tools like 'remove_autoload' or 'remove_node'.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the description implies it's for removing input actions, it doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., the action must exist), exclusions, or when to choose other tools like 'list_input_actions' to check first. This leaves the agent without context for decision-making.

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