manage_scripts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry transparency. It adds useful semantic glosses: replace is 'substring across scripts,' edit_replace is 'find/replace in one script,' validate is a 'loadstring syntax check,' and get_dependencies lists 'require() targets and services.' However, it does not disclose side effects for destructive actions (create/delete/set_source), permission requirements, or return behavior, leaving meaningful behavioral ambiguity.

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 a compact single paragraph that front-loads the target resource and action list without filler. Each parenthetical earns its place by disambiguating action names, and the usage note is delivered in one short sentence.

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 13-action tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides a useful action inventory but leaves gaps. It does not specify which parameters are required per action, explain the ambiguous 'edit_lines' action, describe return formats for validate/list/search, or note failure/side-effect behavior. The schema covers parameter names but not action-level contracts.

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?

The input schema already describes most parameters (69% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds action-to-parameter context beyond the schema: it clarifies replace vs. edit_replace scope, edit_insert/edit_delete line usage, validate input modes, and get_dependencies output semantics. This lifts parameter understanding above schema-only.

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 by naming the exact resource class (Script/LocalScript/ModuleScript sources) and enumerates thirteen concrete actions, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling execute_luau via the phrase 'Prefer these over execute_luau for script edits.'

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 final sentence is an explicit usage directive: 'Prefer these over execute_luau for script edits.' This names an alternative and states when to choose this tool. Even though no other alternatives are mentioned, the core when-to-use guidance is clear and actionable.

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