modify_project_settings

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

The description lacks details about behavioral traits such as whether the setting is created if missing, validation of keys/sections, or the effect on the project. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it only states the action.

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 unnecessary words. It is appropriately concise and front-loaded with the key action.

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 has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the overall behavior, potential side effects, or how the parameters interact, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 has 100% description coverage for all parameters, providing clear documentation for each field. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 is concise and clearly states the action and resource: 'Modify a project.godot setting'. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like read_project_settings and set_main_scene.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the name implies it is for modifying settings, there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling tools might be more appropriate.

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