apps_script_update_content

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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: that merge mode preserves unmentioned files and the manifest, and that replace mode demands explicit appsscript JSON. This warns the agent about the non-destructive vs destructive nature of each mode and clarifies the difference in required input. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The most important distinction (merge vs replace) is front-loaded, and each clause carries meaningful operational information. There is no redundant repetition of schema fields or annotations.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral distinctions and the critical precondition for replace mode. The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly mention what the tool returns after the update, but for an 'update' operation this is often not essential and annotations already convey the destructive nature. The notion of 'HEAD' may be domain jargon, but the sibling set (get_content, create_version, etc.) makes it clear this is the live, editable drafts.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does: it explains the meaning of the mode enum values (merge/replace) and ties the files parameter to a required appsscript JSON in replace mode. The scriptId parameter is self-evident from the tool name and context. The description doesn't explain file type/source object properties, but the schema itself is richly verbose there, so the added meaning targets the most ambiguous parameters (mode and files in context).

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 states a specific verb ('Update') and a specific, meaningful resource ('Apps Script HEAD'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like apps_script_get_content (read), apps_script_create_project (create), and apps_script_update_deployment (update an unrelated resource). The mention of HEAD indicates the live editable version, so the agent won't confuse it with version or deployment updates.

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 gives concrete guidance on the two modes: merge preserves unmentioned files and the manifest, while replace requires appsscript JSON explicitly. This effectively tells the agent when each mode is appropriate, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives (e.g., 'use get_content to read first'). Still, the mode-level decision is clearly scoped.

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