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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint, non-idempotent) by disclosing the concrete consequence: the old text is lost and should be surfaced first, revise spends credits, and revise returns revised_text without persisting. This is exactly the kind of consequence detail an agent needs before calling a destructive 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?

Core purpose and the destructive warning are front-loaded in the first two sentences; per-action blocks follow. The notation paragraph is dense and run-on, but its rules are operationally relevant to authoring `content`, so little of it is genuinely wasted.

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 9-parameter, 5-action tool with no output schema, the description covers the risky paths (save overwrite, credit-spending revise, non-persisting revise return) well. The remaining gap is that settings and set_concept get no behavioral treatment beyond the schema's action enum mapping.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema cannot carry: the notation grammar for `content` (SCENE blocks, break tags, dialogue naming, inline delivery cues) and the revise/selected_text splice workflow. It leaves the settings and set_concept fields to 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?

The opening line states a specific verb+resource ('Change the script or its settings') and adds a differentiating cost note ('only revise spends credits') that separates it from script_generate/script_read. It does not explicitly name a sibling, so it lands just short of a 5.

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?

Gives per-action guidance (save replaces the active text; activate_version switches versions; revise rewrites without saving and must be spliced in then saved) and a prerequisite ('show the user the current script first'). Clear context, though it never explicitly routes to siblings like script_read for ids beyond a passing mention.

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