attach_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'attach' without disclosing side effects, requirements, or what happens on failure. This is minimal but not misleading, similar to a basic verb phrase.

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, so there is no fluff. However, it is under-specified to the point of being almost tautological; it earns a middle score because it is concise but not informative enough.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this one-line description is far too sparse. Given the large set of sibling tools for scene and script management, the agent needs more context about what attaching entails.

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%, and the description gives no meaning to 'node_path' or 'script_path'. The agent receives no hints about path formats, relative vs absolute, or node naming conventions.

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 'Attach a script to a node' clearly states the verb (attach) and resource (script to a node), distinguishing it from sibling 'detach_script' and other node operations. However, it lacks scope details such as what types of scripts or nodes are valid.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It does not mention that a scene must be open or that the script path format is required.

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