create_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about where the script lands beyond the parent parameter, whether creation requires an active Studio session, whether source is optional, whether the operation is undoable, or what is returned. It only restates the create action.

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 compact sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no filler. The slash-delimited type list is slightly terse but readable and mirrors the enum exactly.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin: it omits preconditions, the optionality of source, failure modes for bad parent paths, and post-creation state. An agent could call it, but not with confidence about side effects.

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 coverage is 75%, just below the high-coverage threshold, and the description only restates the scriptType enum values already documented in the schema. It adds no syntax or format detail for 'parent' or 'source' beyond what the schema descriptions provide, so it neither compensates nor enriches.

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 (create) and resource (Script/LocalScript/ModuleScript), and the type enumeration matches the schema enum, so an agent knows exactly what this produces. It is separable from generic siblings like create_instance and bulk_create, though it never names them explicitly.

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 at all: nothing says whether to prefer this over create_instance, write_script, or insert_asset, nor what preconditions exist (e.g., an open place). Usage is only inferrable from the resource name.

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