Импорт проекта

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and non-read-only, so the agent knows this mutates state; the description adds the rescan/reimport/uid scope and the return format. However it never explains WHAT is destructive (overwritten .import files, regenerated uid cache, partial-failure behavior), leaving a real gap against the destructiveHint it carries.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the command and effects, then the usage trigger and return value. No filler, though it is fairly dense and nothing is broken out for scanning.

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, and the description covers the return shape (summary plus output tail), which is the main thing an agent needs to interpret results. Combined with existing annotations, only the destructive semantics remain under-explained.

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?

Two parameters at only 50% schema coverage: force is described in the schema, timeout_ms is documented nowhere. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it does not compensate for the undocumented timeout_ms.

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?

Names the exact underlying command (godot --headless --import) plus the concrete effects (rescan filesystem, import/reimport assets, generate uid). This is specific enough to separate it from siblings like godot_assets or godot_files without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger condition: after adding new asset files and before using them. That gives a clear when-to-use rule, though it does not name alternatives (e.g. why not godot_assets) or state when-not-to-use.

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