godot-mcp-pilot

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 states the tool performs a removal operation, implying mutation, but doesn't clarify if this is destructive (e.g., irreversible), requires specific permissions, or has side effects like breaking references. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary details. It's front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like safety, reversibility, or error handling, nor does it explain what happens after removal (e.g., success confirmation or side effects). Given the complexity, more context is needed.

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 input schema fully documents the three parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying that 'funcName' is the function to remove, which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 target ('a function and its entire body from a GDScript file'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'modify_script' or 'remove_node', which could handle similar operations in different contexts.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'modify_script' or 'remove_node', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing the script to exist or the function to be present. It lacks 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.