godot_attach_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it can create scripts if missing and uses a starter template when no code is provided. However, it doesn't mention error conditions, permission requirements, or what happens when attaching to non-existent nodes, leaving gaps 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential conditional behavior. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

For a 9-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the primary action and conditional creation, but lacks details on error handling, return values, or side effects, which are important given the tool's complexity.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 9 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only hinting at the conditional creation behavior related to script_path and script_code. It doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantics.

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 specific action ('Attach a GDScript file'), target resource ('to a specific node in a saved scene'), and conditional behavior ('creating the script file first when needed'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like godot_create_scene or godot_add_node by focusing on script attachment rather than scene/node creation.

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 context through 'when needed' phrasing, suggesting it handles both existing and new scripts. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like godot_create_shader or godot_edit_scene, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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