scripts_insert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the mutation nature (insert/update), the permission requirement, and the input format (YAML in a ZIP). However, it omits behavioral details such as whether an existing script is overwritten, idempotency, or the return response format.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, input format, permission, and endpoint. No wasteful repetition.

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 provides the essentials (purpose, permission, input format) but lacks operational details needed to invoke correctly, such as how to pass the ZIP (multipart, base64), what fields are expected, or any request structure. Given the empty schema and no output schema, the description is not fully complete for an agent to make the call.

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 is empty with additionalProperties true, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by specifying the key input: 'YAML in a ZIP file.' It does not provide parameter names or structure, but it gives the essential information about the payload.

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 'Insert or update a script' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling script tools like scripts_run_script, scripts_get_scripts, and scripts_delete by focusing on creation/update via YAML in a ZIP file.

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 provides context on when to use it (adding/updating scripts) and notes the required Instance Administrator permissions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes the use case clear relative to running, fetching, or deleting scripts.

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