game_ui_text

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. It does not disclose that set/append/clear mutate UI text, that bbcode may alter rich text markup, or how selection/caret operations affect the control. The generic word 'operations' obscures potentially destructive or state-changing behavior.

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 very short and front-loaded with the node types, but the phrase 'text operations' is generic and adds little beyond the tool name and schema. It is concise but under-specified rather than efficiently informative.

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 six parameters, multiple action modes, and no output schema or annotations, a one-line description is insufficient. It does not explain behavior, return values, node path requirements, or how the different actions interact, leaving the agent to infer too much.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, leaving the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 identifies the target resource clearly—LineEdit/TextEdit/RichTextLabel text controls—which distinguishes it from broader UI sibling tools. However, it lacks a specific verb and only says 'operations,' leaving the exact behavior to the action parameter.

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 implies use for text controls like LineEdit, TextEdit, and RichTextLabel, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as game_ui_control or game_ui_tree. No exclusions or when-not-to-use conditions are stated.

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