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

Beyond the annotations (which only provide flags and no return information), the description discloses a key behavioral trait: every write returns a summary with server-assigned facts and a dashboard link, not the object sent, and the matching get tool must be used to read it back. This adds useful behavioral context not available from annotations or schema.

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 sentences each earn their place: the first states the action, the second provides necessary preparatory guidance, and the third explains the return contract. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 the nested script object, enum type, two required parameters, and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: consult docs/schema, create, expect a summary, and read back via get. It does not detail every nested field requirement, but that belongs to the schema and referenced schema tools, so the description is reasonably complete for a create operation.

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 50%: the script parameter has a description listing name, type, commands, and variables, while projectId has no description. The tool description advises using schema tools to build valid commands, which indirectly supports parameter usage, but it does not add direct explanations for individual parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 opens with 'Create a new script in a project,' which names a specific verb, resource, and scope. It is clear that this tool is for creating rather than updating, deleting, or importing scripts, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives as a differentiator.

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 gives actionable preconditions: read get_documentation topics and use schema tools first to build valid commands. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like import_script, duplicate_script, or update_script, leaving usage timing mostly implied.

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