alterios_upsert_form_manual_script_action

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'plan or upsert' but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, or whether it is destructive. The dry_run parameter hints at a planning mode but is not explained.

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 one sentence, which is concise but too short given the tool's complexity. It front-loads the main action but lacks structure for a tool with 25 parameters.

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?

With 25 parameters, no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and an absent output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or how parameters interact, making it insufficient for correct agent invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions required parameters (form_id, script_id, scope, title, icon_id) but does not explain their meaning or how they relate to the action. The 25 parameters are largely left undocumented.

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 it plans or upserts a manual script action on a page, element, or row value with verified id bindings. It differentiates from execute-related siblings. However, 'plan' and 'verified id bindings' are vague and not further explained.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among siblings like alterios_execute_manual_script or alterios_fast_live_bulk_manual_script, the description does not provide context for selection.

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