script_patch_source

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It correctly discloses that the tool mutates script source in place, but it advertises 'line range replacement' without any schema parameter or syntax to support it, and it omits what happens on no/multiple matches or whether operations are reversible. This is misleading for a mutation tool.

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 tight sentences front-load the core action and method. Every clause carries information; there is no padding.

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 mutating tool with five parameters and no output schema or annotations, the definition is incomplete. It fails to explain how line-range replacement is expressed, the behavior when search matches zero or multiple times, and what the tool returns, leaving an agent to guess at critical invocation details.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no useful parameter guidance beyond the schema. Worse, the 'line range replacement' claim has no corresponding parameter and is not mapped to search/target/isRegex/allowMultiple, so it undermines rather than clarifies invocation semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: apply an incremental patch or replacement to a script. The phrase 'without rewriting the entire file' distinguishes it from sibling script_set_source and makes its purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly conveys the intended context (incremental changes rather than full-file rewrites), setting it apart from script_set_source. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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