script_change

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does add real value: removal archives (rather than discards) the source, and changes are deferred — they stay pending until build/select and an authorized launch, so the effect is not immediate. It stops short of stating required permissions, idempotency, or failure behavior, which keeps it out of 5 territory.

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?

Three tight sentences with the action set front-loaded and no filler; the behavioral caveats follow in sequence. The compressed 'build/select' shorthand is slightly opaque but efficient.

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 destructive-capable mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter documentation, the description covers the operation set and the deferred-effect workflow but omits the two things an agent most needs: the authorization required to apply changes and the role of expectedRevision.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does document the four action values and their effects, and 'installed script' implies what id refers to, but expectedRevision is never explained — its optimistic-concurrency meaning is left entirely to the caller's guess.

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 names a specific resource (an installed script) and enumerates the four discrete operations that map one-to-one onto the action enum (enable, disable, remove, restore). That makes it clearly distinguishable in practice from siblings like script_import or script_preview, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Changes stay pending until build/select and a later authorized launch' hints that this tool is only one step in a build/select/launch workflow, pointing at native_build, native_select_build and native_launch. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or named alternative, so guidance stays at the implied level.

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