launch_editor

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say that a long-running external GUI process is spawned, that a session must later be terminated via close_session/quit_godot, or how the sessionId is surfaced for follow-up tools.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficient, but the terseness contributes to the missing usage and behavioral context rather than being an appropriately complete definition.

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 tool that spawns a persistent external editor process with openWorldHint=true and no output schema, the description should say what the agent gets back and how the session lifecycle works. Neither the process lifecycle nor the sibling routing is addressed, leaving the agent under-informed despite full schema coverage.

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%, and the schema itself explains that projectPath is the project directory and sessionId is the handle required for follow-up tools. The description adds no further meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Launch') and resource ('Godot editor') scoped to a project, so the agent knows exactly what operation occurs. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings such as run_project, start_debug_session, or run_playtest, which all sound like they 'start' something Godot-related.

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 guidance on when to launch the editor versus run_project, run_scene, or start_debug_session, nor on when this is inappropriate. The agent must infer the distinction purely from the sibling names, which overlap heavily.

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