create_site_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic action. It fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether creation is idempotent, error handling, or what happens on success (e.g., returns an ID). For a mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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 core purpose ('Create a new site script') and adds clarifying context ('custom JS/CSS snippet') without waste. Every word earns its place, 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, side effects, or return values, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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%, providing clear documentation for all parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying 'content' is for JS/CSS and 'location' for injection, which is already covered in schema descriptions. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 ('Create') and resource ('site script') with additional context about what it is ('custom JS/CSS snippet'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_site_script' and 'delete_site_script' by specifying creation. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'get_site_script' or 'list_site_scripts', keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'update_site_script' for modifications or 'delete_site_script' for removal. The description implies usage for new scripts but lacks explicit conditions, prerequisites, or comparisons to sibling tools, offering minimal direction.

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