update_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 indicates a mutation ('Replace') but does not state whether the operation is destructive, what happens to the existing code/name, whether partial updates are allowed, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action in exactly nine words. There is no filler, and every word earns its place. This is an excellent example of conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple with only three parameters, and the schema covers all of them. However, the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral transparency, and there is no output schema to explain return values. For a mutation tool with no annotations, more context is needed to be fully complete, though the simplicity of the operation keeps it from being severely lacking.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'source code and/or name' maps directly to the 'code' and 'name' parameters, but it adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The required 'index' parameter is also not elaborated beyond its schema description.

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 action: 'Replace an RGSS script's source code and/or name'. The verb 'Replace' and the specific resource 'RGSS script' make it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_scripts, create_script, and search_scripts.

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 modifying an existing script's code or name, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over create_script or get_script, nor does it mention prerequisites like obtaining the index from get_scripts. The context is clear but not fully elaborated.

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