update_script_include

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

The annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation. The description adds the prerequisite that SCRIPTING_ENABLED must be true, which is useful operational context. However, it does not disclose further behavioral details such as what happens when the condition is unmet or any side effects beyond the update. With the annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but 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 that front-loads the action and resource, with the requirement in parentheses. Every word is informative and there is no redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple update tool with two parameters and complete schema coverage, the description covers the core purpose and a key prerequisite. While it does not mention return values or error behavior, the lack of an output schema and the annotations clarifying safety make this reasonably complete. It could benefit from a brief note on what the response contains, but it is not critically incomplete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters ('Key-value pairs to update' and 'System ID of the script include'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('a script include'), using a specific verb+resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_script_include, get_script_include, and list_script_includes. The parenthetical requirement adds a useful constraint without obscuring the core purpose.

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 the tool is for updating script includes by its name and action, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives such as update_record or create_script_include, nor does it mention exclusions or alternative tools. The prerequisite SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true is a condition, not usage guidance.

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