nexterm_update_script

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the cryptic note that script content is model-visible, and says nothing about the critical behavioral question for a 6-field update: whether omitted/null fields mean 'leave unchanged' or 'clear the value', nor what happens on a non-existent script_id.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action, no filler. The second sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic, but there is no wasted text to trim.

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?

For a mutation tool with 6 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotations covering update semantics, the description leaves out partial-update behavior, required permissions, and failure modes. What is present does not let an agent invoke it confidently beyond the required script_id.

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% across 6 parameters, so the description must carry the burden. It only gestures at the 'content' parameter via the visibility note and never explains name, os_filter, description, organization_id, or the null-default patch semantics — the single most consequential ambiguity in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Update a Nexterm script"), which is enough to know it mutates an existing script. However, it does not name any of the updatable fields or distinguish itself from near siblings like nexterm_update_snippet or nexterm_update_source beyond the resource noun. A minimally viable but not differentiating purpose statement.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as nexterm_create_script, nexterm_get_script, or nexterm_reposition_script, and no prerequisites (permissions, script existence, org scoping) are given. The agent must infer all routing from the tool name alone.

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