Manage resources

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the general create/read/edit operations without explaining side effects, overwrite behavior, read return format, or required project context. The overwrite parameter exists in schema but is undocumented in the description.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, includes a helpful workflow tip. No redundant wording.

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?

With six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It fails to explain return behavior for read, the role of overwrite, or how properties are applied, leaving an agent without enough guidance for correct invocation.

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 67%, leaving action and overwrite undocumented. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning; it lists resource types but does not explain action semantics, overwrite default, or properties mapping. The schema's enum and default provide limited context, but the description does not compensate for the gap.

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 uses a specific verb phrase 'Create, read or edit' with a clear resource type 'Godot resource files (.tres)' and lists example resource categories (materials, themes, curves, tilesets, physics shapes, input/animation data), distinguishing it from sibling scene/node/script tools. The 'Use api_reference first' hint further clarifies its role in the workflow.

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?

It implies when to use: for .tres resource files, and advises using api_reference first. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use it, e.g., vs node_modify for scene nodes.

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