gdscript_sync_file

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

Annotations include idempotentHint=true, which indicates safe repeated calls. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the tool triggers LSP notification and returns diagnostics, and that passing content avoids disk reads. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: purpose, return value, usage guidance. No redundant information. Front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the schema covers all parameters, annotations are present, and the description explains return values and usage context, the description is largely complete. It could mention error handling or prerequisites, but for a notification tool it is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters documented. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining the purpose of the optional 'content' parameter: 'Optionally pass content directly to avoid reading from disk.' This helps the agent understand when to use the optional parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Notify Godot's LSP that a file was modified and get updated diagnostics.' It explicitly mentions the return value (diagnostics) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like gdscript_sync_files (plural) by focusing on a single file sync.

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 provides explicit when-to-call guidance: 'After using Edit/Write tools to modify a .gd file.' It also explains why (LSP does not watch files) and gives the option to pass content directly. No explicit when-not-to-call is given, but the usage context is clear.

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