write_script

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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait: it fully overwrites, not merges or appends. With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden, and it does convey the destructive nature of the operation. However, it does not mention whether the file is created if missing, whether directories are created, or what happens on failure.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key behavior ('Creates or fully overwrites'). It earns its place with no wasted words, though it could add a brief usage note without becoming bloated.

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 write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It tells the agent the operation is destructive, which is the most critical fact, but it omits details like whether parent directories are created, whether the file must already exist for overwrite, and how it differs from edit_script. Given the sibling set includes both read_script and edit_script, a bit more context would help.

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 only 33%, with only script_path having a description. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema. The tool description does clarify the overall purpose of content (the full file contents), but it does not explain project_path semantics or the relationship between project_path and script_path.

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 states a specific verb ('Creates or fully overwrites') and a specific resource ('GDScript (.gd) file'). It clearly distinguishes the write operation from sibling tools like read_script and edit_script, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 creating a new script or fully replacing an existing one. However, it does not explicitly contrast with edit_script, which is the natural alternative for partial modifications, nor does it state any prerequisites or conditions.

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