bunny_set_edge_script_code

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with all three — it describes a write operation that saves a draft rather than altering live code. The description adds genuinely valuable context beyond annotations: the draft-vs-live behavior, informing the agent that the change is not active until published. No annotation contradiction.

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 sentences totaling roughly 30 words, with the core action front-loaded and the crucial draft/publish caveat in the second sentence. Every word earns its place — no filler, no restating of the title.

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 main complexity of this workflow — that the update is saved only as a draft and requires a subsequent publish step — is fully covered, and the responsible sibling tool is named. Since no output schema exists, a brief hint about the response shape would add value, but for a simple two-parameter set operation with annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly 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 100%, with both parameters (id and code) already described in the input schema. The description only echoes that the code is JavaScript source, adding no param-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the semantic load.

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 states a specific action ('Upload or replace the JavaScript source code') on a clearly identified resource ('an edge script'), matching the tool name directly. It also distinguishes this tool from its siblings — bunny_get_edge_script_code handles the read counterpart, and bunny_publish_edge_script handles deployment — so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 maps the workflow explicitly: this tool saves a draft, and the agent is directed to bunny_publish_edge_script to deploy it live, naming an alternative and the condition that selects it. It does not enumerate every when-not-to-use case against other edge-script siblings like bunny_manage_edge_script, but the draft-vs-live distinction covers the primary routing decision.

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