bunny_manage_edge_script

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

Annotations already signal destructive behavior (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the detail about script types and field naming conventions, which goes beyond the schema. It does not disclose potential side effects of update (e.g., full replacement) or constraints, but given annotations cover the destructive nature, a 3 is appropriate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then script types, then usage hints. Every sentence serves a purpose: it states the operation, defines an enum-like distinction, and gives field-specific guidance. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Given the 5-parameter schema with 100% coverage and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what actions are possible, what fields are needed per action, and the type meanings. It does not explain the response format, but that is not required without an output schema. The only minor gap is not discussing prerequisites (e.g., that id is needed for update/delete), but the schema already states that. Overall sufficient for an agent to safely invoke.

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 each parameter already has a description. The description adds the specific guidance that 'settings' uses BunnyCDN PascalCase field names, which is not in the schema. However, most parameter meaning is already conveyed by the schema, so the description provides marginal added value. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 explicitly states the tool creates, updates, or deletes an edge script, with a specific resource and verb. It also clarifies script types (0=Standalone, 1=Middleware) with their purposes, which distinguishes the core functionality from siblings like code management tools. The scope is unambiguous.

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 some usage direction (provide name/type for create, settings with PascalCase for update) but does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives such as bunny_set_edge_script_code or bunny_manage_edge_script_variables. It implies when to use it (for CRUD operations) but lacks when-not-to-use guidance. The distinction between create and update is clear, but alternatives are not named.

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