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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds the 'upload or replace' behavior, which implies overwriting existing assets at the same path. It doesn't disclose whether replacement is destructive to existing content or if there are any side effects, but the annotations cover the safety profile. The description adds some context about how the asset is used (as a command key) but not deep behavioral details.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the core action ('Upload or replace a script asset from base64 content') and then provides a useful example. It's concise and every sentence earns its place, though the example could be seen as slightly verbose.

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 mutation tool with destructiveHint=true, the description explains the primary use case and the path-key relationship. However, it doesn't mention what happens on replacement (e.g., overwriting existing content), any prerequisites (e.g., project/script must exist), or the response format. With no output schema, the agent might not know what to expect. The description is adequate but has gaps.

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%, with path and contentBase64 having descriptions. The description adds meaning by explaining the path's role as a key for commands, which goes beyond the schema's 'The asset path / key to store it under.' However, scriptId and projectId have no descriptions in the schema, and the description doesn't compensate for those. The description adds some value but doesn't fully cover the undocumented parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Upload or replace a script asset from base64 content.' It specifies the resource (script asset) and the action (upload/replace), and distinguishes it from siblings like get_script_asset and delete_script_asset by focusing on the write operation. The example of using the path as a key for commands adds concrete context.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool: when uploading or replacing a script asset, and explains how the path is used as a key for commands. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling list includes get_script_asset and delete_script_asset, and the description's focus on upload/replace makes the usage context clear.

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