script_set_source

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

The verb 'overwrite' clearly communicates that existing source code is destructively replaced, which is the main behavioral risk. However, with no annotations provided, the description does not add context about irreversibility, error behavior on invalid targets, or potential side effects like script recompilation.

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?

Single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action ('Overwrite') and precise resource. Every word contributes meaning.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description plus fully documented schema is nearly complete. It lacks only explicit usage guidance and side-effect disclosure to be fully self-sufficient.

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 100%, so both target and source are already documented in the input schema. The description adds the script-type scope but no new detail about target path formatting or source content beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Overwrite') and resource ('full source code of a Script, LocalScript, or ModuleScript'). The word 'full' clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling script_patch_source, and the action distinguishes it from script_get_source and script_read.

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 implies use when the entire script source must be replaced, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. An agent must infer the distinction from the word 'full' rather than being told.

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