attach_script

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

With no annotations beyond the title, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain side effects (e.g., file modification), permissions required, or what happens if the script already exists. The single sentence is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 very brief (8 words) and front-loaded with the verb. It is efficient but may be too terse, missing important context. Structure is adequate for a simple tool.

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 has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the 'headless' term, return value, or error conditions. More detail is needed for safe usage.

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 provides 100% description coverage with clear explanations for each parameter (nodePath, scenePath, scriptPath, projectPath). The description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already states.

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 the action (attach), the resource (GDScript), and the target (scene node). The term '(headless)' adds context that the operation is non-interactive. It helps distinguish from sibling tools like 'game_script' or 'create_script', though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to attach a script vs. create one or modify a script. There are no prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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