create_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one behavioral trait: the default insertion position 'just above Main'. However, it does not mention potential side effects, whether the operation is reversible, what happens if a script with the same name exists, or what the return value is. This is a moderate level of transparency, earning a 3.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes only essential information. Every sentence serves a purpose: the first states the function, the second clarifies an important default behavior. This is an example of conciseness without under-specification.

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 tool's low complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides enough context for an agent to understand the core function and the key default behavior. The schema fully covers parameter semantics. However, it lacks any information about prerequisites, return values, or potential edge cases, which prevents a perfect score. For a simple create operation, this is still fairly complete.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds minimal value by echoing the default position behavior for the 'position' parameter, but it does not explain the 'code' or 'name' parameters beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new RGSS script.' It also adds a meaningful detail about the default insertion position, which distinguishes it from siblings like update_script and search_scripts. The word 'new' explicitly differentiates it from update_script.

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 the tool is for creating scripts, as opposed to updating or searching them. While no explicit alternatives or exclusions are named, the context is clear enough that an agent would know to use this when adding a new script rather than modifying an existing one. A score of 4 is appropriate because it provides clear context without explicitly listing alternatives.

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