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 disclosure burden. It does signal that existing source is 'overwritten' (implying no undo), but omits permissions/context requirements, behavior if the path is missing or not a Script, and whether the change takes effect while the game is running.

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 with no filler; the mutation and its target are stated immediately.

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?

With only two well-documented params and no output schema, the core is covered. However, with zero annotations and no output schema, the description should clarify failure modes and required execution context, which it does not.

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%, so 'Full instance path' and 'New source code for the script' are already documented. The description adds no syntax, format, or path-resolution detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('updates or overwrites') and resource ('Source text of an existing Script in Studio'), and the word 'existing' usefully signals it won't create a new script. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like read_script or execute_luau, but the operation is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this over read_script or execute_luau, no prerequisites, and no note that the path must resolve to an existing Script rather than another instance type. The agent must infer all of this from the name.

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