update_client_script

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), idempotent (idempotentHint=true), and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the requirement SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true, which is valuable context. No contradictions with annotations.

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, clear sentence with a parenthetical prerequisite. Every word is necessary and adds value. No fluff.

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?

While annotations and schema cover the basics, the description lacks information about the return value or success behavior. Also, no details about required permissions beyond SCRIPTING_ENABLED. For a moderate complexity tool with no output schema, this is adequate but not 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 coverage is 100%, but the description enriches the 'fields' parameter by giving examples ('script, active, name, type, etc.'), which helps the agent understand what can be updated. 'sys_id' description is clear.

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 'Update an existing client script' with a specific resource and verb. It distinguishes well from sibling tools like create_client_script (creation) and get_client_script (retrieval).

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 includes a prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true') but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_record. It does not provide exclusion criteria or specific use cases.

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