editor_stop

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clarifies that this is a command to the running Godot editor rather than a file operation, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects such as whether the call is asynchronous, what happens when no scene is playing, or whether any error/status is returned.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the target environment, the action, and the affected resource without wasting words.

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 parameterless control command, the description is largely complete: it names the target (running Godot editor) and the operation (stop currently playing scene). It would be marginally better with explicit note of no-op behavior or return semantics, but those are not essential given the tool's simplicity.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema imposes no documentation burden. The description does not need to explain parameter meaning, and the baseline score of 4 applies because there is nothing for the description to compensate for.

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 specific verb ('stop') and resource ('currently playing scene'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like editor_run_scene, but the reverse relationship is clear enough for an agent to infer the operation.

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 phrase 'currently playing scene' implies the tool should be used when a scene is running and needs to be stopped. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, what happens if no scene is playing, or how it compares to alternatives like editor_run_scene or run_headless.

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