automations_set_script_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It adds 'Auto-reloads scripts', indicating a side effect after writing. However, it omits crucial details: whether changes affect running scripts, if the operation is destructive (replaces entire config), error conditions, or permission requirements. The single behavioral hint is insufficient given the lack of annotations.

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 extremely concise: two sentences covering purpose and a key side effect. It is front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place with no redundancy. This is an exemplary model of brevity without sacrificing essential information.

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 tool's mutation nature and available output schema, the description covers the basic action and auto-reload behavior. However, it lacks information on validation (e.g., what happens with invalid YAML), whether script must exist prior, or what the response contains. The output schema exists but is not described, so the agent is left guessing about return values. It is adequate but has notable gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, placing full burden on the description. The description adds that config is a 'YAML config (sequence, fields, ...)', which gives a vague hint but no specific parameter details (e.g., valid fields, format of config object, or how script_id is used). It does not compensate adequately for the missing schema descriptions. An output schema exists but is not referenced.

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 'Create or overwrite a script YAML config', specifying the verb (create/overwrite) and resource (script YAML config). It mentions 'sequence, fields, ...' to clarify config contents. This distinguishes it from siblings like automations_set_automation_config (automation config) and automations_run_script (run, not config).

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 usage for updating or creating script configurations, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like automations_get_script_config (read) or automations_run_script (execute). It lacks prerequisites (e.g., script existence) and exclusions. The context of siblings provides some inference, but the description alone offers no direct guidance.

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