norns_load_script

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that this is a write operation, that the current running script is replaced, and that the default is a simulated dry run gated by confirm=true. It omits whether audio/state of the replaced script is preserved or stopped, and whether confirmation failures error out or silently no-op.

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?

Three short clauses with the modality marker and the core effect front-loaded; every sentence carries actionable information and nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation semantics, safety default, and name format. The one real gap is how live mode is triggered given that no 'live' parameter exists in the 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the 'script' value shape ('awake' or 'folder/file'). However, the mention of a '--live' flag that does not exist as a parameter creates confusion about how the agent switches out of dry-run mode, and 'confirm' is only loosely tied to it.

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 a clear modality tag ("WRITE. Load a script by name") and a concrete effect ("replaces the running one"), with format examples ('awake' or 'folder/file'). It doesn't, however, differentiate itself explicitly from the sibling norns_start_script, which an agent could easily confuse with loading.

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 gives a critical usage rule – the call is a dry run unless live mode is enabled, and live mode requires confirm=true – which tells the agent how to actually enact a change. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over norns_start_script or norns_read_script, and it never says what happens if confirm is omitted on a live attempt.

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