add_inline_site_script

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only repeats the 2000-character limit, which is already present in the schema. It does not disclose whether registration is idempotent, whether duplicates are overwritten, or any permission requirements, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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 appropriately concise at two short sentences. However, the second sentence about character limits is redundant with the schema. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary purpose, earning a slightly above-average score.

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 has a rich schema but no annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context about side effects, return behavior, or how it fits into the broader script-management workflow. It only states the action and a constraint, which is insufficient for an agent to confidently assess the tool's full impact.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to the parameters beyond what is already in the schema. The 2000-character limit is redundantly stated, and no parameter-specific usage nuances are provided.

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 tool's action: 'Register an inline script for a site.' This is a specific verb+resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'site_registered_scripts_list' or 'delete_all_site_scripts'. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other add/modify tools, so it misses the full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as listing or deleting scripts. The only constraint mentioned is the 2000-character limit, which is a limitation rather than usage context. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or typical scenarios.

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