Editor

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this can mutate state; the description adds the specific actions (play/pause/stop/select) as context. However, it does not disclose side effects (e.g., entering play mode may trigger compilation) or what information the 'state' action returns, leaving behavioral gaps beyond the annotation.

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 two sentences with zero filler. It front-loads the purpose and packs the essential usage details for the select action into a compact form, making every word useful.

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 control tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description omits important details like return values for 'state' and the consequences of play/pause/stop. It is not completely hollow, but leaves gaps in what the agent should expect after invocation.

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 description enriches the schema by explaining that 'select' uses 'path' for single targets and 'paths' for comma-separated multiple targets (with an example). It also enumerates allowed action values. This goes beyond the basic schema descriptions, though it does not clarify the 'project_path' action fully.

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 the tool controls editor state/playback and selection, listing specific actions (state, play, pause, stop, select, project_path). This distinguishes it from many sibling tools, though the phrase 'Editor state/control' is somewhat generic without the action list.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like set_active or scene. It does imply usage by describing the select action for paths, but lacks clear context or exclusions such as 'for scene inspection use get_hierarchy instead'.

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