script_attach

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., scene file modification), prerequisites (e.g., node must exist), or error conditions. The behavior is defined minimally.

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 short and front-loaded with the purpose. The Args list is helpful but somewhat redundant with the input schema. No wasted sentences, but could be slightly more compact.

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?

The description covers the parameters adequately but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., script must exist), return value (output schema exists but not detailed), and relationship to sibling tools like script_detach. It is functional but not fully complete.

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%, but the description adds meaningful explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'Path to the scene file (relative to project)' and an example for node_path). This adds value beyond the schema titles, though path formats and constraints could be more precise.

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 'Attach a GDScript file to a node in a scene,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like script_create, script_detach, and script_list by focusing on the attachment action.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., script_detach for removal). There is no mention of prerequisites or context where this tool is appropriate.

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