Ресурсы Godot

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds meaningful operational context: mode=set writes properties, save=true persists the file, and save_as writes to a new path — i.e. it discloses that the existing resource can be overwritten. It stops short of describing permissions, reversibility, or error behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then modes, then value formats. Two dense sentences with little waste, though the value-syntax sentence is long and could be gated by mode for easier 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?

For an 11-parameter, four-mode tool with no output schema, the description covers the main flows and value formats but leaves limit, props, and property_mode unexplained and never states the return shape per mode (beyond 'метаданные и зависимости'). Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool this complex.

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 45%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the mode enum values, save/save_as, and gives detailed value-syntax rules for property items (nested paths, 'Vector2(10, 20)' strings, '$'-tagged objects, resource refs). The undocumented limit, props, and property_mode parameters are the remaining 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 ('чтение и изменение любого Resource' with the .tres/theme/shader/scene-resource scope) and enumerates the four operating modes. An agent can tell what the tool manipulates, though it never explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like godot_scene or godot_script.

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 explains what each mode does (info/get/set/create), which helps an agent pick the right internal option, but gives no guidance on when to reach for this tool versus godot_scene, godot_assets, or godot_files. Usage is implied through mode semantics rather than stated.

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