st.chat.script_inject.configure

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state that the operation persists and requires confirmation, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, irreversibility, permission needs, or edge cases around delete/update.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and includes the important confirm requirement without wasted words.

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 13 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this short description is not enough for an agent to configure the tool correctly. It captures the general purpose but leaves most of the configuration semantics implicit.

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 description coverage is 0%, and there are 13 parameters with no descriptions. The description adds one meaningful note about confirm: true, but does nothing to explain value, role, position, force, filter, delete, snapshotLabel, or how they interact with create/update/delete.

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 specific actions (create/update/delete), the target resource (chat_metadata.script_injects), and the nature (persistent slash-command-style prompt injection). It doesn't explicitly compare to siblings such as st.prompt.set_injection, but the resource path and style distinguish it.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternative routing. The only additional instruction, 'Requires confirm: true', is a precondition rather than context for choosing this tool. With many sibling configuration tools available, this is a clear gap.

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