Regenerate IDE project and solution files by running FlaxEditor.exe with -genprojectfiles, keeping Flax Engine projects synchronized with your editor setup.
Runs FlaxEditor.exe -genprojectfiles to regenerate IDE project/solution files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| errors | Yes | ||
| exitCode | Yes | ||
| timedOut | Yes | ||
| succeeded | Yes | ||
| errorCount | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=false already signals a mutating operation; the description adds real value by disclosing the underlying process (spawns FlaxEditor.exe) and the artifact it rewrites (IDE project/solution files). It stops short of stating whether existing customized project files are overwritten, whether the editor must be closed first, or whether the call blocks until generation finishes.
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 the action and the literal command line; no filler, nothing that could be trimmed without losing information.
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 zero-parameter tool with an output schema and a declared mutation hint, the description covers what it does and how. The only gaps are operational preconditions (editor state, overwrite behavior), which keep it from being fully self-sufficient.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly implies the build target is implicit rather than configurable.
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?
Names a specific action (regenerate IDE project/solution files) and the exact mechanism (FlaxEditor.exe -genprojectfiles). This is clearly distinct from sibling build_* tools such as build_compile_scripts or build_game, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should be run when project/solution files are stale (e.g., after adding scripts), but the description never states when to use it, when not to, or how it relates to build_compile_scripts. No prerequisites or ordering guidance are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.