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 burden. It indicates a write operation ('resave') but does not disclose potential side effects, such as overwriting files, requirements (e.g., project not open), or reversibility. The lack of behavioral context is a significant gap for a mutation 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 two lines with no unnecessary words. The purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter explanation is concise. Every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits usage guidance, side effects, and any note about return values (though an output schema exists). An agent would not know the risks or when to prefer this over other tools.

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 coverage is 0% for the parameter, but the description provides meaningful semantics: it specifies 'project_path' as an absolute path to a Godot project directory. This goes beyond the schema's bare label 'Project Path', though it lacks format validation or preconditions.

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 a specific action ('Resave all resources') and its purpose ('regenerate UID files'), including a version constraint (Godot 4.4+). It is distinct from sibling tools like get_uid, which retrieves UIDs rather than regenerating them.

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 purpose implies when to use (when UID files need regeneration), but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives or when not to use. The description does not differentiate from other tools or provide context on typical scenarios.

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