set_project_setting

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety bar is lower. The description still adds meaningful behavior: the write is surgical ('preserving unrelated comments/values') and validated in isolation, and it advertises dryRun and expectedHash as preview/conflict-guard facilities. It doesn't describe what a validation failure or hash mismatch looks like, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the behavioral guarantee and optional flags, then the sibling routing. No filler and no repetition of the tool name or title.

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?

This is a mutation tool with an output schema, so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers preservation, validation, dry-run, and conflict detection. The remaining gap is parameter-level meaning for setting-path syntax and value typing, plus what a failed validation or hash conflict means for the caller.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it only names dryRun and expectedHash without explaining them (preview-only vs. optimistic concurrency check). projectPath, setting, and value get nothing beyond the 'typed' hint. It compensates partially but leaves the highest-risk parameters underspecified.

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 and resource ('Set a typed project setting') and adds the distinguishing qualifier that it preserves unrelated comments/values during the edit. It also carves out input actions and autoloads as separate tools, which separates it from set_input_action and register_autoload. What a 'project setting' actually is (a project.godot config key) is only implied.

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 final sentence explicitly routes two whole categories of settings to dedicated tools, which is real when-not-to-use guidance naming the alternatives. It gives no guidance on when to prefer dryRun or expectedHash over a plain call, and no prerequisites are stated.

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