update_project_uids

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the operation mutates the project by resaving resources, which implies file-level writes. But it stops short of describing side effects (which files get rewritten), reversibility, or prerequisites such as whether the Godot editor must be closed during the operation.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with zero filler. The verb, resource, mechanism, and version gate are front-loaded in order of importance, making the tool's purpose readable at a glance.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the core semantics are well covered: what it does, how it does it, and the version requirement. The main gap is what success looks like or exactly what changes on disk, but the tool's narrow scope makes this omission non-critical.

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% — projectPath is already documented as 'Path to the Godot project directory'. The description adds only the Godot 4.4+ version qualifier, which subtly constrains what projectPath should point to but contributes no new syntax or format details. The baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb ('Update'), a precise resource ('UID references in a Godot project'), the mechanism ('by resaving resources'), and a version scope ('for Godot 4.4+'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like get_uid (single-resource UID lookup) and save_scene (persisting a single scene) without needing to open their schemas.

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 'for Godot 4.4+' qualifier provides applicability context — this tool is only relevant for projects on Godot 4.4 or newer. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over alternatives (e.g., get_uid for individual UID checks) or when not to use it, leaving routing to the agent's inference.

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