reload_script_node

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful behaviors: replacing inline source, selecting/reloading a canonical file, and retaining/validating mode. However, it does not say whether recompilation mutates persistent state, what errors can occur, or what 'preview' returns vs. final execution.

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?

Three compact, focused sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The mode-specific guidance is crisply organized and every sentence adds useful information without redundancy.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the overall context is incomplete for an 8-parameter tool with no annotations. Major parameters are unexplained, the distinction between preview and actual recompile remains ambiguous, and there is no mention of side effects or ordering prerequisites such as the need for an existing ScriptNode.

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 explain the parameters. It does clarify mode, inline_script, and script_file semantics, but 5 of 8 parameters (graph_path, node_path, preview, command_id, idempotency_key) receive no explanation at all, leaving the agent without enough context to set them correctly.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb pair ('Preview or recompile'), the resource ('one exact ScriptNode'), and the scoping constraint ('without cross-graph fallback'). This clearly differentiates the tool from generic reload/script-management siblings and tells an agent exactly what the operation targets.

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 concrete mode-based instructions: 'inline' with inline_script, 'file' with script_file, and omitted mode to retain/validate current mode. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over close siblings like reload_script or configure_script_node, nor does it provide exclusions.

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