write_script

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Updates or overwrites' signals a destructive write and 'existing Script' implies the target must already exist, but nothing is said about failure behavior for a missing path, permissions, or whether the previous source is recoverable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the verb, the mutated field, and the target scope with no filler. It is efficient, though extremely short given how much it leaves unsaid.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is too thin. It omits creation-vs-update semantics, error conditions, and parameter formats that an agent needs before invoking a write.

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 there are 2 undocumented parameters, so the description must compensate. It implies 'path' locates the Script and 'source' is the new text, but gives no format or syntax details (e.g., whether path is a hierarchy path or an instance identifier), leaving both parameters underspecified.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Updates or overwrites the Source text of an existing Script') and scopes it to Studio, which clearly separates it from read-side siblings like read_script and script_read. It stops short of naming the write alternative (multi_edit), so it isn't a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. With multi_edit and create_instance among the siblings, the description never explains why an agent should pick write_script over those, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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