Add a script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool forces a specific pipeline (backup→modify→validate→level.apply→level.save.file), performs auto-rollback on failure, and converts 4-space groups to tabs. However, it does not mention any side effects or authorization requirements.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers the core action, pipeline behavior, and indentation recommendation. It could hint at return values or error handling, but overall it is fairly complete.

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% with clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action: adding a Script/LocalScript/ModuleScript under a parent instance. It uses a specific verb ('추가한다') and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like studio_create_part (adds parts) or studio_import_model.

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 mentions the forced write pipeline and auto-rollback, which provides context, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., studio_apply) or when not to use it.

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