Script / Build

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: the build runs in the background, a successful build triggers an assembly reload and plugin reconnect, results (warnings or errors) arrive asynchronously after the reload via requestId, and concurrent calls are rejected with a retryable error. It does not address why destructiveHint=true (what on disk may be overwritten) or expected duration, so it is not fully exhaustive.

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 core action and its purpose are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the async/retry details follow in logical order. The second sentence is long and densely packed (reload, reconnect, requestId delivery), costing some readability but no wasted content.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the return path (compiler warnings/errors delivered after the reload via requestId) and the async/retry contract, which is what an agent needs to call it safely. It omits build scope details (whole solution vs project) and expected build duration, so it is strong but not fully 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?

Zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is little for the description to clarify. It mentions a 'requestId' that does not exist in the schema, which is mildly confusing but does not affect invocation since no arguments are accepted.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (build the project's C# via dotnet build, Debug configuration) and ties the effect directly to sibling tools script-create/script-update by explaining what the build makes loadable ([GlobalClass] types, changed node scripts). An agent can distinguish this from script-validate or script-execute without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use guidance: call after writing/updating scripts so they load in the editor. It also explains the failure mode to expect (calls during the pending reload are refused with a retryable error, retry in a few seconds). It does not compare against alternatives such as script-validate, so it stops short of explicit when-not-to-use routing.

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