godot_configure_gridmap

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

No contradiction with annotations: readOnlyHint=false matches the mutating verbs (assign/set/place). The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation, however — it does not surface that clear_all can wipe all cells or that cells_to_clear erases cells, which are the tool's potentially disruptive operations. Since the schema separately documents these with descriptions, and the default clear_all=false makes default behavior non-destructive, a 3 is fair.

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?

A single, tight sentence with zero filler, front-loading the three core capabilities. Every word contributes; there is nothing redundant or vague. It is model-efficient and scannable.

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 description is brief but the schema is rich, with every parameter documented (including the destructive clear options, collision layers, and orientation semantics), and an output schema is present. The main gap is that the description does not call out the tool's destructive capabilities (clear_all, cells_to_clear) or distinguish it explicitly from TileMap tools, leaving the agent to infer scope from the schema and '3D' wording. Adequate but relies heavily on structured data.

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%, so the description does not explain any parameters. However, each property in the schema (cell_size, mesh_library_path, cells_to_set, clear_all, etc.) carries its own detailed description, so the schema fully shoulders the burden. The description's three verbs loosely map to mesh_library_path, cell_size, and cells_to_set, but it adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states specific verbs (Assign, set, place) tied to a concrete resource (MeshLibrary, cell sizes, 3D grid tiles), clearly identifying this as GridMap configuration. The '3D grid tiles' phrasing usefully distinguishes it from the 2D TileMap siblings (set_tilemap_cells, configure_tileset_terrain). It is not a tautology and names real capabilities, though the verbs are slightly generic.

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 tool is a mutating configuration tool and the '3D grid tiles' wording implies this is the GridMap counterpart to the 2D TileMap tools, giving some contextual routing. However, there is no explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites exist (e.g., navigating to a scene), or when not to use it. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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