Редактор Godot

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: the environment prerequisite and an explicit warning that mode=install_bridge modifies the project. But annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description never separates the genuinely mutating modes (save, reload, edit_scene, run, stop, install_bridge) from the read-only ones (status, log, screenshot) — the most useful per-mode safety signal.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the prerequisite and the modification warning before the mode enumeration. Every clause carries information; the mode list is long but each entry is needed since the enum alone conveys no semantics.

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?

No output schema exists, so return values for status, log, and screenshot are undocumented, and the description never maps which parameters each mode requires (path for open_scene, limit for log, ops for edit_scene). Adequate for choosing a mode, insufficient for predicting or validating results.

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 coverage is only 40%, so the description has to compensate, and it does well for the dominant parameter by spelling out all ten mode values. It adds nothing for limit and timeout_ms, and path/ops are handled by the schema text, leaving a partial gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Управление редактором через аддон-мост') and enumerates every mode with its meaning, so an agent can tell what each call does. However, it never differentiates itself from siblings that overlap heavily (godot_screenshot, godot_logs, godot_scene), which is the only reason it falls short of a 5.

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?

Gives a concrete precondition — a running editor with the Bismuth MCP Godot Bridge plugin — which is the key gating context an agent needs before calling. It does not, though, say when to prefer this tool over godot_scene/godot_logs/godot_screenshot for the same operations.

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