Godette

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral insight. It implies a mutation ('Set or change') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are destructive or reversible, error conditions, or side effects. The 'expectedHash' parameter hints at concurrency control, but this isn't explained in the description.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word serves a purpose.

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 mutation tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It lacks details on behavior, error handling, return values, or how it fits within the broader editing workflow. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic context about parameters beyond implying they're used for property modification. It meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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 clearly states the action ('Set or change') and target ('a property value on a node in a .tscn scene file'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_node_properties' (read vs. write) and 'remove_node' (different operation), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the scene file to exist), exclusions, or compare with similar tools like 'replace_content' for broader edits. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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