godot_install_asset_package

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'auto-plugin registration' as an extra behavioral detail, but doesn't disclose potential side effects like file overwriting, network dependency, or that it modifies the active project's filesystem. Neutral but not actively misleading.

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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the action (download and install), the target (community asset/plugin package), the destination (active project), and a key behavior (auto-plugin registration). No wasted words.

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?

An output schema exists programmer. The description explains what the tool does but omits important contextual details: preconditions (an active project must exist), failure modes (network errors, invalid package, overwrite conflicts), and side effects (project file modifications). The mention of 'auto-plugin registration' adds helpful context, but the description doesn't prepare the agent for installation failures or environment requirements.

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 tool description does not describe parameters directlyressive; however, the schema provides clear descriptions for each parameter (asset_id, target_dir, download_url, response_format, auto_enable_plugin). The contextual signal shows 0% schema description coverage in the tool description, but the nested input schema itself is well-documented, so the agent can resolve parameter semantics. The description's mention of 'auto-plugin registration' aligns with the auto_enable_plugin parameter, adding slight value.

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?

Description is precise: 'Download and install a community asset or plugin package into the active project, with auto-plugin registration.' It names the specific verb (download/install), the resource (community asset/plugin package), and the context (active project). Clearly distinguishes from siblings like godot_search_asset_package, godot_reimport_asset, and godot_audit_assets.

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 implies 'when you need a third-party asset or plugin in the project' but does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., godot_audit_assets for inspecting, godot_reimport_asset for reimporting). No exclusion criteria are given, so an agent must infer usage from the name and first line.

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