write_project_config

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'write' but does not disclose whether existing values are overwritten, whether sections are auto-created, whether type coercion occurs (value is string in schema but Godot configs support multiple types), or any side effects like requiring an open project. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence, immediately front-loaded with the verb and target. It contains no wasted words and is easily parseable.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not mention return values, failure conditions, persistence behavior, or interaction with the editor state. For a tool with three parameters and a write side effect, this is incomplete.

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 clear parameter descriptions (section, key, value). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the action itself, so it does not enhance parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Write a config value to project.godot' clearly identifies the verb (write), resource (config value), and target (project.godot), distinguishing it from the sibling read_project_config. It does not explicitly mention 'project settings' but the filename is unambiguous.

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 such as read_project_config or diff_project_config. The description lacks any context about editing project settings, prerequisites, or exclusions, so an agent has no basis for tool selection.

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