register_script_tool

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

With no annotations, the description itself reveals the critical behavioral trait: this tool only catalogs a script as a draft and does not execute it until a separate review/enable step. It adds meaningful context beyond the schema, though it does not mention side effects, overwrite behavior, or success conditions.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the blocking constraint is stated immediately after. Every word earns its place.

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?

The description captures the tool's high-level purpose and main behavioral constraint, but is incomplete for an agent needing to fill 7 parameters correctly, especially with zero schema descriptions. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value ambiguity, but parameter semantics and workflow context remain under-specified.

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 0% and the description neither explains parameters nor hints at their meanings beyond the word 'script'. With 7 parameters including 'source', 'task', 'triggers', and 'filename', an agent gets no field-level guidance from either the schema or the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Catalog') and resource ('a script as a draft tool'), and explicitly differentiates this from executable tools by stating it cannot execute until reviewed and enabled. This distinguishes it from siblings like run_library_tool and approve_library_tool.

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 clearly establishes the purpose and a key constraint ('cannot execute until separately reviewed and enabled'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus create_library_tool or approve_library_tool. Usage context is implied rather than directly compared to alternatives.

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