Open the Godot editor

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows the safety profile. The description adds that the editor opens in its own window for the user, which explains observable behavior beyond annotations, but it omits whether repeated calls spawn multiple windows (despite idempotentHint=false), what happens if the project path is invalid, or any auth/permission requirements.

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 efficient sentence with no waste, front-loading the verb and resource. Slightly terse given the mutation-like nature of opening an editor window, but appropriate size overall.

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-required-param tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, given annotations (non-idempotent, readOnly) and an openWorldHint=false, a few more words about side effects (e.g., whether it blocks or returns immediately, whether multiple calls create multiple windows) would round it out.

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 100%, so both params (scenePath, projectPath) are already documented with optionality and defaults. The description adds no extra parameter syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 per rules when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ('Open the Godot editor for the project') and adds clarifying scope ('in its own window, for the user'). Clear purpose, though it does not name or differentiate from siblings like run_project, which could be confused with launching the editor.

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 context is implied by the name and description ('for the user'), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance, nor any mention of alternatives such as run_project or capture_screenshot. Minimum viable.

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