Настройки проекта

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent already knows writes can be destructive and non-idempotent. The description meaningfully adds that save=true persists project.godot while the default is in-memory only, which is critical behavioral context beyond the annotation. It still doesn't spell out that overwriting settings can corrupt a project or that writes are destructive.

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-loads the resource, then enumerates each mode compactly, ending with a crucial key-format example. No waste, 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 6-parameter tool with no output schema and destructive writes, the description covers the modes, key format, and persistence semantics well. It could more explicitly warn that set with save=true mutates the project file, but overall it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 83%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds value by clarifying the key format (no section prefix, e.g. "display/window/size/viewport_width") and by mapping keys/items/save to their respective modes, which the schema only partially conveys.

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 names a specific resource (project.godot settings) and enumerates three explicit sub-operations (list/get/set) with what each does. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like godot_project_info (read-only info) and godot_resource by focusing on project settings read/write.

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?

It explains what each mode does and gives a usage example for key format, which helps the agent choose. However it does not explicitly name when to use this vs. godot_project_info or godot_resource, nor does it state when *not* to use it.

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