script_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states that the tool creates and immediately sets content, and returns an ID. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., behavior if name conflicts, or parent_id validity), permissions required, or error handling. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: first stating the action and return value, second giving the ideal use case. Every sentence contributes essential information without waste. Ideal for quick parsing.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the core action and return value. However, it omits details like whether the tool overwrites existing scripts, error conditions (e.g., invalid parent_id), or prerequisites. For a creation tool, this is a reasonable minimum but not fully complete.

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?

All 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The tool description adds little beyond that—it mentions setting content and returning ID, which relates to 'content' and implicitly the return value. Since schema already documents parameters, the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 that the tool creates a new PHP script and sets its content, returning the new script ID. It differentiates from sibling tools like script_write (which likely updates) by emphasizing 'neues' (new). However, the language is German, which may slightly reduce clarity for an English-focused agent, but it remains 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?

The description says 'Ideal für neue Automationen die Claude komplett erstellt.' which suggests use for creating new automations from scratch, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like script_write for editing, nor does it mention prerequisites or when to avoid using this tool. Some guidance is present but incomplete.

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