update_project_uids

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It reveals the operation writes by 'resaving resources', which implies modification of project files, and adds the version constraint. However, it does not mention that this may touch many files or other potential side effects like UID reassignment or irreversibility.

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?

A single sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. The version constraint is appended compactly, making the description appropriately sized.

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 one-parameter tool the description is almost sufficient, but without annotations or an output schema it omits success/failure behavior and the scope of changes (whole project). It would be more complete with a note on what is returned or how invasive the resave is.

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 already provides 100% coverage with 'Godot project path' for projectPath. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Update'), an object ('UID references'), and the mechanism ('resaving resources'), plus a version qualifier '(4.4+)'. This clearly differentiates the operation from siblings like get_uid and save_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 explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the '(4.4+)' constraint signals it is for Godot 4.4 or newer. The use case is implied, not spelled out, and no alternative tools are mentioned.

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