toggle_movie_maker

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it 'Edit[s] project.godot' but does not disclose whether this is destructive (overwrites existing settings), whether it requires write permissions, whether it is reversible, or what the impact is on the project beyond toggling the recorder. The mention of 'locking the render time-step' implies a side effect but does not explain consequences. This is a significant gap for a file-modifying tool.

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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose, then lists parameters in a clear, readable format. The intro sentence could be slightly more direct ('Engine Activator' and 'perfect fps loop' are a bit verbose), but the structure is effective and each sentence adds value. It avoids redundant or extraneous information.

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 is simple with 4 parameters, but the description omits key contextual information: it does not explain what happens on success or failure, whether the project.godot file must already exist, or how the tool handles invalid paths. Although the context signals indicate an output schema exists, we don't have it, so the description should offer more about return behavior. The lack of usage prerequisites and error handling makes it incomplete for an agent that might need to know if a project is required.

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?

The description provides explicit explanations for all four parameters, which the input schema lacks entirely (0% schema coverage). It defines project_path as the absolute project directory, enable as the toggle, output_file as a res:// path with an example, and fps as the capture framerate with a default and a conditional note ('Only used when enable=True'). This fully compensates for the missing schema descriptions.

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 ('Edit project.godot to toggle'), the specific resource (Godot's uncompressed video recorder), and the effect ('locking the render time-step to a perfect fps loop'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like launch_editor or run_project, which focus on running or launching, not on editing project settings. The phrase 'Movie Maker Engine Activator' reinforces the specific function.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., that the project must exist, that Godot must be installed), nor does it state when it would be inappropriate to use (e.g., if the project is already running). It simply explains the mechanism without context for decision-making.

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