Author Script operator

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

Annotations are readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description transparently explains that it creates a Script op and companion DAT, writes stubs, and infers custom parameter types. It also mentions the cooking behavior. However, it does not clarify what happens if a node with the same name already exists, which could be a gap.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence stating purpose, followed by details on actions and a note on cooking behavior. It is slightly verbose but each sentence adds value.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no output schema), the description covers creation process, return format, and a behavioral note. It lacks error handling or prerequisites but is sufficient for an open-world tool.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the return object structure (op_path, callbacks_path, params_added, warnings) and the type inference for custom_params, which goes beyond the schema.

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 starts with 'Scaffold a Script CHOP/DAT/SOP/TOP', a specific verb+resource, and details the creation of a Script operator with onCook stub and custom parameters, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'create_td_node' which create generic nodes.

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 for creating Script operators with stubs but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or state when not to use this tool. The note about cooking behavior provides some context but no guidance on tool selection.

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