Manage Script

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

Annotations indicate it is mutable (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false) with idempotentHint=true. The description adds value by detailing error behavior and dry-run support, which are not covered by annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loading the purpose and covering essential behaviors (idempotency, errors, dry-run) without unnecessary detail.

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 7 parameters (2 required), no output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, the description covers the core actions and important nuances. It could optionally mention return behavior or success indicators, but the current content is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 all parameters described. The description reinforces key semantics like name as idempotency key and dry-run, providing marginal additional context beyond the schema.

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 manages RouterOS scripts with three actions (add, update, remove). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_scripts (read-only) and run_script (execution) by focusing on CRUD operations.

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 specifies idempotency by name and error conditions (CONFLICT for add, NOT_FOUND for update), guiding the agent on expected outcomes. However, it does not explicitly advise when to use this tool versus other management tools (e.g., manage_firewall_rule).

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