Manage Script

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: idempotency by name, specific error conditions (CONFLICT, NOT_FOUND), and dry-run capability. Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description elaborates on the idempotency key and error cases. No contradictions found.

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 concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence provides essential information: actions, idempotency, error behavior, and dry-run. No redundant or extra text.

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 no output schema, the description covers actions, error behavior, idempotency, and dry-run. It lacks details on success responses (e.g., whether it returns the script object). However, given the schema coverage and annotations, it provides sufficient context for an agent to use the tool correctly. Sibling differentiation is implicit through the tool name and description.

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 100% (all 7 parameters have detailed descriptions). The tool description does not add new parameter information beyond what the schema provides, except for emphasizing the 'name' parameter as idempotency key and mentioning 'dry-run'. Baseline 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 tool's purpose: 'Add, update, or remove a RouterOS script' with specific verbs (add, update, remove) and resource (script). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'run_script' and 'manage_scheduled_job' by focusing on script lifecycle management.

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 provides guidance on when to use add vs update via error behavior ('add throws CONFLICT if the name already exists; update throws NOT_FOUND if it does not'). It also mentions dry-run support. However, it lacks explicit comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., when to use 'run_script' instead) and does not state when not to use the tool.

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