attach_script

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false (modifying) and destructiveHint=false, but description adds the critical 'undoable' trait, which is not in annotations. This extra context helps the agent understand the reversible nature of the operation, going beyond what annotations provide.

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, well-structured sentence that is immediately informative. Every word adds value; no redundant or extraneous content.

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?

The tool is simple with 2 required params and no output schema. The description covers the core semantics but omits details like what happens if the node doesn't exist, if the script is already attached, or error conditions. Adequate but not thorough for a modifying action.

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%, so description must compensate. It clarifies that 'path' expects a res:// URL, which is helpful, but does not explain 'target' (likely a node path) or any constraints. The partial compensation is insufficient given both parameters are required and undocumented in schema.

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 action (attach), the resource (script with res:// path), the target (node in open scene), and an important characteristic (undoable). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like write_script or validate_script which serve different purposes.

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 implies when to use (to attach a script to a node) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among the many sibling tools. The context is clear but lacks exclusions.

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