modify_project_settings

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

The description discloses important behavioral semantics: only provided fields change, settings can be nested objects or dot-paths, and the tool returns the full resulting project settings snapshot. Even without meaningful annotation metadata, this gives an agent a clear model of the mutation's scope and return value, though it does not discuss failure cases or permissions.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then moves efficiently through the input format, return behavior, and explicit exclusions. Every sentence adds useful information and none of it repeats the schema or annotations.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers scope, input format, partial-update behavior, return value, and routing to sibling tools. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already describes the settings parameter as 'Partial project settings to change (path/value pairs); only provided fields are modified', so coverage is high. The description adds valuable detail beyond the schema by giving concrete examples of nested objects and dot-paths, such as { enableWebGpu: true, "layers.0.name": "World" }, which clarifies the expected format more precisely.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Modify project-wide settings') and lists concrete setting domains (physics engine, rendering device, layers, input, resolution). It clearly differentiates this tool from modify_scene_settings and modify_entities by scope, so an agent can identify it without inspecting schemas.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool (project-wide settings changes) and when not to use it, naming concrete alternatives: modify_scene_settings for per-scene settings like fog or gravity, and modify_entities for a single entity. It also explains how to supply partial settings, which is the key invocation pattern.

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