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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explains that the whole script object is replaced rather than merged, that a new revision is created, and that writes to existing user data require explicit confirmation. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures an agent needs to invoke the tool safely.

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 focused sentences: the first states the operation and result, the second gives the critical replacement and confirmation constraints. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 destructive mutation tool without an output schema, the description supplies the essential context: what is replaced, that a revision is created, that no merge occurs, and that user confirmation is required. The required identifiers and nested fields are already defined in the input schema.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description compensates by enumerating the replaced fields (name, type, commands, variables) and framing them as a full replacement rather than a merge. It doesn't elaborate on projectId/scriptId, but their purpose is evident from names and the nested script schema covers the field structure.

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 the specific verb 'Replace' and the resource 'an existing script's name, type, commands, and variables', making the action and scope unmistakable. It also notes the result ('creating a new revision'), distinguishing it from create/delete operations without mentioning sibling names.

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 implies use for modifying an existing script via full replacement, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over related alternatives such as create_script or duplicate_script, nor does it list conditions where it should not be used. The no-merge rule is behavioral context, not usage routing guidance.

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