save_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the potentially destructive overwrite behavior ('or overwrite'), but lacks details on permissions, directory creation, or scope of the file path. The mention of 'overwrite' is a useful warning, but more context would improve transparency.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action verb. Every word is relevant, with no filler or repeated schema information.

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 tool is simple with three well-documented parameters and no output schema. The description covers the primary action and the overwrite behavior, which is sufficient for most use cases. It could mention edge cases like path handling, but the schema fill that gap, making this reasonably complete.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates that content is provided. It does not explain path semantics or format beyond what the schema already describes.

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 clearly states the action ('Create or overwrite') and the resource ('a script file') with specific content. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_scripts, get_script, run_script, and delete_script, which have different purposes.

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 usage for creating or updating a script file, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., save_config) or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references.

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