Update Script Content

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

Despite destructiveHint already being true, the description adds crucial behavioral detail: with merge=False, 'any existing file omitted from files is permanently deleted.' This tells the agent exactly what gets destroyed and emphasizes permanence, going beyond the annotation.

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 front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second sentence explains the key behavioral distinction. 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?

Given the output schema exists and all parameters are documented in the input schema, the description covers the essential behavioral context: creation/update, merge mode, and destructive replacement mode. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining that files are merged 'by file name' and that other files remain untouched. It also clarifies the permanent deletion consequence of merge=False, which deepens the meaning of both `files` and `merge`.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update or create files in a script project.' This clearly identifies the tool's object of action and distinguishes it from siblings like get_script_content or create_script_project. The merge/replace detail further clarifies its scope.

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 clear usage context for the two modes: default merge behavior versus merge=False for full replacement. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as create_script_project or get_script_content, but the intended use case is evident from the wording.

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