Create GDScript

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

Annotations supply only a title, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. Saying 'Create a new GDScript file' implies a mutation but does not explain whether existing files are overwritten, where the file is created, whether a project must be open, or what the tool returns.

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 sentence with no filler, and the action and resource are front-loaded. It is compact and readable, earning its place without redundancy.

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 tool with seven parameters and side-effecting file creation behavior, this one-liner is under-specified. It omits expected side effects, overwrite semantics, required setup, and guidance on how parameters like class_name and extends relate to the operation, even though the schema covers individual parameter details.

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%, and the input schema documents each parameter with names, defaults, and formats for exports and signals. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema handles 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?

The description states a specific action ('Create') and a clear resource ('a new GDScript file'), so the tool's core function is immediately understandable. It is less explicit at distinguishing itself from sibling creation tools like godot_create_resource or godot_create_scene, though the 'GDScript' target narrows the scope.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as godot_create_code_template, godot_write_file, or godot_validate_script. There is no mention of prerequisites, project context, or situations where another tool would be preferable.

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