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

Goes beyond annotations by disclosing the refusal condition, that team scripts are read-only here, and how {first_name}/{company} placeholders are resolved per person. It does not explain what an update replaces on an existing script, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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?

Three tight sentences, create-vs-update stated first, followed by constraints. No filler or duplicated schema detail.

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?

Covers create vs update, refusal rules, and template substitution for a tool with no output schema. It leaves what an update does to existing fields, and the title/body length limits, implicit.

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?

Adds real meaning the schema lacks: title and body are required only to create (the schema's required list is empty), and the body supports per-person placeholders. The folder parameter is left unexplained, though the schema covers it.

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 and resource ('Create a personal teleprompter script, or update one of the user's own personal scripts') and scopes it to personal scripts. It also draws the line against team scripts, which separates it from related tools like get_script and list_scripts.

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?

Explicitly says to pass script_id to update and omit it to create. It also names the exclusions: team scripts are edited in Quibbly even for admins, and the call is refused when the team allows team scripts only.

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