Edit Godot File

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

Annotations provide no read-only or destructive hints, so the description carries the behavioral burden, but it only states 'replacing content.' It does not disclose what happens if old_content is not found or appears multiple times, whether changes are reversible, or if any backup/confirmation mechanism exists.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

The core operation is clear and the schema covers all parameters, with an output schema present to describe return values. However, for a mutating operation with no annotation support, the description could reasonably include at least a note about replacement behavior or when to prefer this over write_file.

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 input schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'replacing content' loosely maps to old_content/new_content but adds no extra constraints, formatting details, or nuances beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Edit') and resource ('Godot file') and clarifies the operation with 'replacing content,' which conveys find-and-replace semantics. It is distinct enough from godot_write_file conceptually, though it does not explicitly name the sibling.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like godot_write_file or godot_update_drive, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The agent must infer the intended use case from the tool name and schema.

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