execute_editor_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the execution context (editor process), the output mechanism (_mcp_print), the return mechanism (return value sent back), and a critical safety restriction (file/resource write APIs refused unless allow_unsafe_editor_io is true). This is rich, useful behavioral information beyond what the schema provides.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It packs essential information (execution context, output, return, safety flag) without any wasted words or repetition. The semicolon-separated clauses maintain clarity while covering all key aspects.

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 tool's complexity (arbitrary code execution) and lack of output schema/annotations, the description does a good job of covering the essentials: what the code should do, how to emit output, how to send back a return value, and a major safety guard. It could have mentioned error handling or access to editor APIs, but the provided info is sufficient for basic usage and safe invocation.

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 has zero descriptions for parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains the allow_unsafe_editor_io parameter's purpose (controlling access to unsafe file/resource APIs) and describes how to use the code parameter (as the body of run(), with _mcp_print for output). While it doesn't detail every nuance, it adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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 specifies the tool's function: executing GDScript in the editor process. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like execute_game_script by explicitly stating 'in the editor process'. The verb 'Run' and resource 'GDScript' are specific, and the added detail about _mcp_print and return values further clarifies its intended use.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (running arbitrary GDScript in the editor). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'editor process' qualifier implicitly differentiates it from execute_game_script. No exclusion criteria are given, so it falls short of a 5.

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