attach_script

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false (a mutation operation), but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the simple action. It does not disclose what happens to an existing script on the node, whether the scene file is saved, or any validation requirements. The description is neither misleading nor contradictory, but it is minimally informative.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action and core objects. It contains no redundant information and is appropriately brief for the tool's simplicity.

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 description is adequate for a simple tool with fully documented parameters and annotations, but it lacks usage trade-offs, side-effect details, and any error conditions. Given the tool's complexity, this is a minimal but acceptable level of completeness.

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%, with all four parameters (projectPath, scenePath, nodePath, scriptPath) having clear descriptions. The tool description reinforces the role of scriptPath and nodePath ('GDScript file' and 'existing node') but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('attach') with a clear resource ('GDScript file') and target ('existing node in a scene'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like write_script (which writes script content) and add_node (which adds nodes). The meaning is immediately clear.

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 when to use this tool (when you have an existing node and a GDScript file to attach), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions when not to use it. There is no comparison with related script tools like write_script or validate_script.

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