Resources

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, correctly signaling a mostly-mutating but non-destructive, local-only tool; the description does not contradict this. It adds some behavior context (extract writes an embedded resource to its own file; create can take a custom script), but says nothing about disk writes, permission needs, or reversibility of edit/duplicate.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact action list where each line carries payload shape plus a concrete example. Dense but every line earns its place; only mild verbosity in the example payloads.

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 10-parameter, 7-action tool with no output schema, the description covers each action's required arguments, which is the main gap the schema leaves. It does not describe return values or failure modes, but with no output schema that omission is tolerable rather than disqualifying.

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?

With 90% schema coverage the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by binding parameters to actions (e.g. assign uses path=node, property, resource='res://..' or inline {type,...}; create accepts type=Resource with script=res://item_data.gd). This supplies per-action meaning the flat schema cannot express. Return/error semantics are still absent.

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 the specific resource domain (Godot .tres resource files: materials, shapes, themes, curves, custom Resource classes) and enumerates the seven actions with their argument shapes. An agent can tell this apart from node/scene/script siblings by the resource-centric scope, though the definition never explicitly names a neighboring tool.

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 per-action breakdown (create/read/edit/duplicate/assign/extract/types) with example payloads gives clear context for which action applies to which task. It also notes that inline resources can be set directly through node props, which implicitly flags an alternative path. No explicit when-not guidance or routing to siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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