set_project_setting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose that this is a persistent write to the project.godot file, nor does it mention any prerequisites like an open project or potential side effects.

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 clearly communicates the tool's purpose without fluff. It is front-loaded and every word is meaningful.

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 simple mutating tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is minimal but adequate to identify the purpose. It lacks behavioral details like return values or side effects, but given the tool's simplicity, it covers the core intent.

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 description's 'section/key notation' clarifies the expected format for the 'setting' parameter, but the schema already provides examples. The 'value' parameter has no description at all, so the tool description adds only marginal value.

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 verb 'Set' and the resource 'project.godot setting', with a specific notation convention. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like set_node_property by targeting the project settings file directly.

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 usage when a project.godot setting needs to be changed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No alternative is mentioned, though the tool's uniqueness makes usage somewhat self-evident.

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