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

Annotations declare non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world, but the description adds context annotations don't: script macros run with GM rights and are blocked unless the module setting Allow Script Macros is enabled (off by default). This security/permission disclosure is exactly the kind of behavioral value expected beyond annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core differentiation (create vs execute), then the crucial caveat about script macros. No wasted words; every clause carries information.

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 6-param create tool with a 100%-covered schema and no output schema, the description covers the key gotcha (script-macro gating) and clarifies type semantics. It does not touch folder/scope/img, but the schema fully documents those, so the gap is minor.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: it explains what the 'chat' and 'script' type values hold and the execution semantics of each. That enriches the most consequential enum beyond the bare 'chat or script' in the schema.

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 macro') and immediately scopes it against the sibling ('without running it (macro-execute runs it)'). An agent can distinguish it from macro-execute and the other macro-* tools without opening any schema.

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?

Clearly signals creation rather than execution and names macro-execute as the alternative for running. It also gives the condition under which script macros are accepted (Allow Script Macros setting), which is real usage guidance. It stops short of enumerating when to prefer chat vs script beyond the type explanation, so not quite a 5.

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