project_manage

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

With no annotations, the description compensates well by disclosing stop()'s idempotent behavior ('succeeds with was_running=false'), strict parameter validation ('only the registered keys are accepted'), and the requirement that session_id be a sibling of op/params. It doesn't cover all possible side effects but gives meaningful behavioral insight.

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 well-organized with a bulleted list, code formatting, and a compact call shape example. Every sentence contributes unique value, and the structure makes the content easy to scan without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description need not cover return values. It thoroughly documents all operations and constraints, including idempotency and validation rules. However, it could be more explicit about error conditions or how settings_set interacts with a running project, leaving a minor gap.

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%, but the description fully compensates by explaining each operation's parameters: stop takes none, settings_get expects a key with a concrete example, settings_set takes key and value. It also clarifies the canonical call shape and parameter nesting rules, adding substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 opening sentence 'Project run/stop and project.godot settings' clearly defines the tool's scope. It then enumerates three concrete operations (stop, settings_get, settings_set) with specific one-line descriptions, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like project_run or game_manage.

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 description gives actionable guidance by noting 'prefer for active-session reads' regarding resource forms, warning against passing extra params, and explaining session_id placement for multi-editor setups. While it does not exhaustively compare to every alternative, it provides clear do/don't rules.

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