set_project_setting

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

The description adds that the tool 'persist[s] project.godot', which aligns with the destructiveHint=true annotation. It does not contradict annotations, and while it provides some behavioral context beyond the annotation (e.g., explicit persistence), it does not detail potential side effects or prerequisites.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first states the core purpose, and the second provides an example and parameter clarification. There is no unnecessary information, and it is front-loaded with key functionality.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and a moderate number of parameters (3), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, parameter mapping, and an example. It could optionally mention error handling or creation of new settings, but for a simple mutation tool it is adequately complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that 'setting' holds the property path and that 'name' is also accepted as an alias, and provides an example showing how to use 'value'. This adds significant meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 clearly states 'Set a ProjectSettings value and persist project.godot', which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project_setting and others by focusing on setting values with persistence.

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 provides an example usage ('set application/run/main_scene to res://main.tscn'), giving clear context on when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the example effectively implies the typical use case.

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