Godot MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'by resaving resources', hinting at mutation behavior, but doesn't disclose critical details like whether this is destructive, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or handles errors. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral transparency.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes relevant version context. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, error handling, and usage context. For a tool that modifies project files, this minimal description is inadequate to ensure safe and correct usage by an AI agent.

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%, so the schema already documents the single parameter 'projectPath'. The description adds no additional meaning or context about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the verb ('Update UID references') and resource ('in a Godot project'), specifying the action and target. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the specific Godot version (4.4+), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'get_uid' or 'save_scene'. The purpose is specific but could be more distinct regarding sibling tools.

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 provides minimal guidance, only implying usage for Godot 4.4+ projects needing UID updates. It doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'save_scene' or 'get_uid', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. No explicit when/when-not instructions are given, leaving usage context vague.

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