write_collision_layers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It conveys that the tool overwrites, but it does not clarify whether it replaces all layer names or only the provided ones, what happens if a parameter is omitted, or any side effects on the project.godot file. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutating operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant content. It efficiently captures the tool's 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?

The tool is relatively simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core action but omits edge-case behavior (e.g., empty objects, merging vs. replacing, error conditions). It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, with both parameters clearly described in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states 'Write/overwrite 2D and 3D collision layer names in project.godot,' using a specific verb ('write/overwrite') and resource ('collision layer names in project.godot'). It distinguishes from the sibling read_collision_layers by indicating a write operation.

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 (write when you need to set collision layer names) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It lacks explicit guidance about when to prefer this over write_project_config or other configuration-modifying tools.

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