edit_project_settings

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so no safety context. The description merely says 'modify' without disclosing whether settings are overwritten, whether values are validated, whether the file is flushed, or any side effects. For a mutation tool, this is a significant transparency gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, zero waste. The alternative is stated in a second concise sentence.

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 simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and one alternative. However, it omits behavioral details like whether existing settings are merged or replaced, and whether changes persist immediately. This leaves the description somewhat incomplete for a mutation tool.

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 description coverage is 100%: both parameters (settings and projectPath) have clear descriptions, with an example for settings. The description adds category context ('input actions, display, rendering, physics') but no additional syntax or format details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a clear action: 'Modify project.godot settings' with a specific resource and enumerates categories (input actions, display, rendering, physics). It also explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool manage_autoloads by directing autoload singletons there, satisfying the differentiation criterion.

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 gives an explicit when-not/alternative: 'For autoload singletons, prefer manage_autoloads.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and which sibling to use instead, meeting the highest bar for usage guidance.

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