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

The description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits: it upserts per tool_name, never executes scripts on the server, enforces size tier limits (with rejection and locking behavior), and explains that the description is the search index. It complements the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by detailing the mutation semantics and constraints, adding significant value beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 lengthy but each sentence carries functional information: purpose, upsert, language, execution model, size limits, and description guidance. It is front-loaded with the primary action and progressively adds operational details. No redundancy; the length is justified by the tool's complexity and the need to communicate multiple constraints.

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 tool with 8 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, behavioral quirks (size tiers, locking), parameter roles, and integration with sibling tools. It addresses everything an agent needs to correctly invoke and understand the save action, including edge cases like downgrades and over-limit saves.

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 meaning beyond the schema: it explains that tool_name is a stable slug used for upsert, that description is the search index, that language defaults to javascript/node with bun as an option, and that destructive indicates whether the script mutates things. It also connects parameters to the execution environment (CONNECTIONS_SCRIPT_ARGS).

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 a specific verb (save/upsert) and resource (script instrument into Script Vault), and it distinguishes itself from siblings like connections_script_delete, connections_script_get, and connections_search_catalog by explaining the full lifecycle (save → discover via search → run via script_run). The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

It explains when to use this tool (to persist a reusable script for future sessions) and provides context on how it integrates with search_catalog and script_run. It also gives guidance on writing descriptions for discoverability. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the naming and purpose clearly separate it from delete/get tools, and the upsert semantics are explained.

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