godot_reimport_asset

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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Trigger reimport' without explaining side effects, such as whether the .import file is overwritten or whether the asset must be present. This is minimal transparency for a mutation operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no waste. It is concise and directly states the purpose, though it could be enhanced with a brief usage note without losing conciseness.

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 inadequate for a tool performing a potentially modifying action. It lacks prerequisites, error conditions, an explanation of preset vs. custom_params, and how this relates to other import tools. Even with an output schema (implied), the entry conditions and effects are not disclosed, leaving an agent under-informed.

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% per context signals, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'custom import parameters' but does not specify the parameters (asset_path, preset, custom_params) or their semantics beyond the vague phrase. The schema itself provides some descriptions, but the tool description adds no value, failing to bridge the coverage gap.

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 verb 'reimport' and resource 'asset files' are specific, and the mention of 'custom import parameters' adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like godot_configure_gltf_import or godot_audit_assets, so it falls short of a 5.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_configure_gltf_import or editing import settings directly. It also does not mention prerequisites like the asset existing or the project being open, leaving usage context entirely implicit.

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