ygo_ensure_script

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that every script is verified by loading into ocgcore, that official ProjectIgnis scripts auto-replace generated ones, and what the response contains (provenance, confidence, recognised patterns, engine errors, replacedGenerated). It stops short of stating prerequisites (network access for article reading, filesystem writes, cache staleness) or side effects of assigning temp IDs and replacing scripts.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by mode-specific explanations and then the return contract; semicolons keep it compact. It is dense but every sentence carries information, with only the return-value enumeration bordering on redundant given the lack of an output schema (which actually justifies it).

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 an 8-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies enough to call it correctly: scope, two primary modes, the verification guarantee and the returned fields. Gaps remain around the three secondary topics (upgrade/inventory/list), error behaviour when extraction fails, and environmental prerequisites, which a careful agent would still have to discover.

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 100% and each parameter already carries a description, so the baseline is 3. The prose adds a little meaning by tying `from-news` to a reveal article and `resolve` to database text, but it does not explain the remaining topics (upgrade, inventory, list) or the interaction between allowGenerate, skipVerify and refreshOfficial beyond what the schema states.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Manage Lua scripts for cards that have no official one') and sharpens it with two named modes (`from-news` article extraction, `resolve` database generation). It implicitly separates itself from sibling analyzers (ygo_analyze_lua, ygo_test_custom_card) by scoping to cards lacking official scripts, but never names those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

It clearly states a usage condition ('cards that have no official one') and gives concrete when-to-use guidance for the two main topics: `from-news` for a reveal article, `resolve` when the card is already in cards.cdb. What is missing is explicit when-NOT-to-use guidance or routing to sibling tools such as ygo_analyze_lua or ygo_test_custom_card for validation work.

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