configure_script_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the extension validates the mode before mutating the graph and that the tool can preview, which is useful. However, it does not explain what 'configure' changes, whether the mutation is reversible, or what side effects occur beyond the graph mutation.

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 compact and well-structured: the first sentence states purpose and scope, and the next sentences capture essential mode invariants. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation, but this is a mutating tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no description of the required graph_path or node_path semantics. The mode constraints are essential, but the description is not complete enough for a fresh agent to safely select and invoke the tool without additional context.

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?

The description adds valuable cross-parameter semantics: inline mode requires inline_script and forbids script_file, while file mode requires script_file and forbids inline_script. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this is important, but the description leaves graph_path, node_path, preview, command_id, and idempotency_key unexplained, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 names a specific action ('Preview or configure') and resource ('one exact ScriptNode'), and states the scope ('inline/file mode'). It is clear enough to identify what the tool operates on, but it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling reload_script_node or other script/graph tools.

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 gives mode-level constraints but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as execute_script, reload_script_node, or action graph tools. Usage is only implied by the resource name and the preview/configure verbs, not by clear selection criteria.

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