update_project_uids

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is not left to the description. The description adds useful context by explaining the mechanism: it updates UID references by resaving resources, and it is version-specific for Godot 4.4+. It does not add further detail such as irreversibility or backup expectations, but annotations carry that burden.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action. Every phrase contributes useful information: what is updated, how it is done, and the relevant Godot version.

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 one-parameter, destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action and version constraint. However, it could do more to explain the operational impact of resaving resources in a project, even though the annotations already flag the operation as destructive.

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?

There is only one parameter, projectPath, and the schema fully documents it as the path to the Godot project directory. With 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to restate parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: updating UID references in a Godot project by resaving resources. It also scopes the operation to Godot 4.4+. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as get_uid or validate_project.

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 Godot 4.4+ note provides an implied usage condition, which is useful. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives, nor any prerequisite or warning about when not to use it.

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