update_client_script

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

Annotations already disclose readOnly=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the SCRIPTING_ENABLED prerequisite, which is useful for understanding a failure condition, but does not elaborate on other behaviors like partial updates or permissions. This adds some value beyond annotations but is not rich.

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, front-loaded with the verb, and includes only the essential prerequisite. No wasted words; every part earns its place.

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 moderate-complexity update tool, the description, schema, and annotations cover the core requirements. The fields object's internal structure is lightly specified, but the description gives sufficient information to select and invoke the tool correctly. A minor gap is lack of detail about return behavior, but no output schema exists.

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%, with both sys_id and fields already described. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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) and the resource (client script), with 'existing' distinguishing it from creation. It also includes a key prerequisite (SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true), making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like create_client_script.

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 use when updating an existing client script and mentions the required scripting-enabled condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so while context is clear, it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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