modify_project_settings

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it explains partial-object semantics ('only the provided fields change'), the return value (full resulting snapshot), and a concrete behavioral constraint that the legacy Ammo physics flags are rejected when set true. It also tells the agent the correct alternative path (Editor IMPORT AMMO button) for enabling physics, which the annotations cannot convey.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and semantics before the physics caveat and exclusions, so the important material reads first. It is on the long side and the physics detail is dense, but each sentence carries distinct, non-redundant 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?

Complete for a nested, mutation-style tool: it covers write semantics, partial-update behavior, return value, a rejection edge case, and sibling alternatives. Nothing essential for a correct call is missing despite there being no output schema.

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 coverage is 100% and the single param is described there, so baseline is 3. The description adds real value the schema lacks: concrete dot-path syntax and an inline example ({ enableWebGpu: true, "layers.0.name": "World" }) plus nested-object support. It stops short of documenting exhaustive path keys, which is impractical here.

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?

States a specific verb (Modify) and resource (project-wide settings), enumerates the setting categories covered, and explicitly distinguishes itself from modify_scene_settings and modify_entities. An agent can route correctly 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?

Includes an explicit 'When NOT to use' section naming the two sibling tools (modify_scene_settings for per-scene, modify_entities for a single entity) and the conditions that select them. Usage boundaries are unambiguous.

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