godot_configure_xr_passthrough

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

Annotations provide only readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It does not disclose whether settings persist, require an existing XROrigin3D, reinitialize the runtime, or affect rendering behavior beyond omitting 'passthrough/foveation.'

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 focused sentence that front-loades the tool's core domain with no filler. It is appropriately sized for the high-level purpose it declares.

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 tool with five nested parameters and XR-specific setup concerns, a one-line description is minimal. It does not state prerequisites, expected scene state, whether OpenXR must be initialized, or how this relates to an existing XR rig, so an agent is left with significant inference burden.

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 is expected to compensate, but it only names passthrough and foveated rendering. It does not clarify xr_origin_path, reference_space, dynamic_foveation, or foveated_rendering_level behavior beyond what the nested schema already lists, making the description's marginal contribution minimal.

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 names a specific resource, 'OpenXR passthrough mode and foveated rendering,' and uses the verb 'configure,' which makes the tool's domain clear among many configure_* siblings. It differentiates from godot_setup_xr_rig by focusing on passthrough/foveation rather than rig creation, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with related 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 only says what the tool configures; it gives no guidance on when to use it over alternatives like godot_setup_xr_rig or godot_configure_render_settings. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions, so the agent must infer the appropriate context.

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